Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

Debate about the simplification of Chinese characters
Traditional Chinese 漢字簡化爭論
Simplified Chinese 汉字简化争论
Literal meaning Chinese character simplification debate
Traditional-simplified debate
Traditional Chinese 繁簡之爭
Simplified Chinese 繁简之争
Literal meaning Complicated-simple dispute
Traditional-simplified debate
Traditional Chinese a簡之爭
Simplified Chinese 正简之争
Literal meaning Proper-simple dispute

The debate on traditional Chinese characters and simplified Chinese characters is an ongoing debate concerning Chinese orthography among users of Chinese characters. It has stirred up heated responses from supporters of both sides in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and among overseas Chinese communities with its implications of political ideology and cultural identity.[1] Simplified characters here exclusively refer to those characters simplified by the People's Republic of China (PRC), instead of the concept of character simplification as a whole. The effect of simplified characters on the language remains controversial for decades after their introduction.

Problems

The sheer difficulties posed by having two concurrent writing systems hinders communications between mainland China and other regions, although with exposure and experience a person educated in one system can quickly become familiar with the other system.[2] For those who know both systems well, converting an entire document written using simplified characters to traditional characters, or vice versa, is a trivial but laborious task. Automated conversion, however, from simplified to traditional is not straightforward because there is not a one-to-one mapping of a simplified character to a traditional character. One simplified character may equate to many traditional characters. As a result, a computer can be used for the bulk of the conversion but will still need final checking by a human.[2]

The writer Ba Jin, in his essay "Thoughts: Reform of Chinese characters" (simplified Chinese: 随想录·汉字改革; traditional Chinese: 隨想錄漢字改革; pinyin: Suí xiǎng lù hànzì gǎigé), urged caution in any reforms to the written Chinese language. He cited the inability of those educated in Hong Kong or Taiwan to read material published on the mainland, and vice versa, as a great disadvantage of simplified Chinese. He also cited the ability to communicate, not just with Chinese peoples of various regions, but also with people from across the Chinese cultural sphere — countries such as Japan and Vietnam — as a great advantage of the written Chinese language that should not be undermined by excessive simplification.[3]

Culture

Pro-Simplified characters

Proponents say that the Chinese writing system has been changing for millennia: it passed through the Oracle Script, Bronzeware Script, Seal Script and Clerical Script stages. Moreover, the majority of simplified characters are drawn from conventional abbreviated forms that have been used in handwriting for centuries[4] such as the use of 礼 instead of 禮,[5] and some simplified characters are in fact restorations of ancient forms that had become more complicated over time. For instance, the character for "cloud" was originally 云, but the character was borrowed to write a homophonous word meaning "to say". To disambiguate the two uses of the character, the "rain" radical () was added on top when it meant "cloud", forming the current traditional character 雲. The homophonous word meaning "to say", however, has become archaic in modern Chinese, though 雲 continues to be used for "cloud". The simplified version simply restores 云 to its original use as "cloud".[5]

Pro-Traditional characters

While some simplified characters were adopted from conventional abbreviated forms that have existed for a long time, those advocating the simplified forms often fail to point out that many such characters in fact had multiple vernacular forms out of which just one was chosen, arbitrarily, and then privileged by the designers of the simplified character scheme. Many of the changes have been found to be ideological, such as the removal of the "heart" (心) from the word "love" (愛) into the new character (爱) without heart. To some, the new 'heartless' love character is an attack on Confucianism, which emphasizes the virtues of filial piety and humanity in our relationships with others so as to maintain a harmonious society.[6] On the other hand, supporters of simplification claim that the use of the character 愛 to represent the meaning of "love" is a rather new invention and was not recorded in Shuowen Jiezi (of course, still far more ancient than many of the modern simplified character innovations). According to Duan Yucai's commentary of Shuowen Jiezi, in which the traditional form is presented as a character meaning love, the principal character for love was originally 㤅, which was long ago supplanted by 愛.[7] In any case, the simplified form 爱 has no substantive precedent to stand on.

Pro-traditional commentators argue that the changes through the history are almost exclusively alterations in writing styles, especially vernacular writing, and not in the fundamental structure of the characters—especially after the Qin standardization. They have alleged that simplified characters were arbitrarily schematized and then imposed by the PRC on its people with the intention of subverting and eradicating selected elements of traditional Chinese culture, in order to carry out what the PRC viewed as necessary revolutionary modernization. These critics point out that many of the fundamental characteristics underlying Chinese characters, including radicals as well as etymological and phonetic elements, were deliberately omitted in their simplified form at least partly for this reason (i.e. disrupting continuity with traditional Chinese culture). One frequently-cited example is the character for "sage" or "holy", 圣 in simplified and 聖 in traditional. The simplified character lacks the king radical (), replacing it with soil (). Supporters of simplification appeal to the fact that that 圣 was often used, in handwriting, as a simplified variant of 聖 long before the PRC itself came into being.[6]

Literacy

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Ambiguity

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Speed of writing

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Phonetics

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Radicals

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Aesthetics

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Practicality

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Politics

The long history of Chinese characters and the role of the Chinese Communist Party in the design and adoption of simplified characters means that there is often a strong political aspect to the debate on the usage of traditional and simplified Chinese characters.

Pro-Simplified characters

Pro-Traditional characters

Developments in recent years

In recent years, the official Campaign of Simplification of Chinese Language has caused many controversial discussions in the general public to higher level of the government in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and amongst some international organisations.

2007

In November 2007, scholars and representatives from Japan, Korea, mainland China, and Taiwan came to Beijing and joined the Eighth Annual International Conference of Chinese Language Study. The conference was conducted and hosted by the National Office of International Promotion of Chinese Language and Board of Language Usage & Applications of the Ministry of Education of China. Immediately after, Korean media reported that the scholars and representatives reached a few conclusions after long discussion in the conference. One of those conclusions was that scholars would be using Traditional Chinese characters to standardise 5000 common Chinese characters across the countries and would continue to allow the use of Simplified Chinese characters if there happened to have one across those different areas. However, Chinese officials claimed that they did not reach such an agreement but would like to see the harmonious coexistence of Traditional and Simplified Chinese. Still, to many, that was the approval from Chinese Government because they were no longer absolutely opposed to the use of Traditional Chinese.[47][48]

2008

In March 2008, a Mainland author, Wang Gan, published a review article on his personal blog about the possibility of the re-introduction of Traditional Chinese, What About Abolishing Simplified Chinese within the Next 50 Years?.[49]

Twenty-one members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) delivered a proposal to add Traditional Chinese characters to the primary school curriculum. The proposal was rejected by the Minister of Education, who explained, 'Our nation has its fundamental governing principles. [One of them, by law, is] to promote the usage of Simplified Chinese and Mandarin. This is the basic condition… Thus, we will not consider re-introducing Traditional Chinese education in our primary school curricula.'[50][51][52][53]

On 5 July 2008, on his visit to Taiwanese writer Koarn Hack Tarn's home, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou promised that he would not introduce the usage of Simplified Chinese into the territories just because of the local newly passed policy to let Mainland tourists visit Taiwan but to provide side-by-side translation so that Mainland visitors could appreciate the aesthetic nature of Traditional Chinese. And he also told journalists that he wished all Chinese people would eventually be using Traditional Chinese in the near future.[52]

2009

In early 2009, the ROC (Taiwan) government launched a campaign to obtain World Heritage status for Traditional Chinese characters in a bid to preserve them for the future.[54] At the Eleventh National People's Congress, a representative from Taiwan, Ms. Chen Jun, called for the Chinese government to support the world heritage campaign. She also suggested the introduction of Traditional Characters education into mainland primary and secondary education to improve passion for and understanding of traditional Chinese culture and language.[55]

During a March 2009 CPPCC meeting, member Pan Qinglin proposed that simplified characters should be abolished and Traditional Character usage reimplemented over the course of ten years. His proposal was widely criticized as frivolous.[56]

At the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences China Studies Forum in April 2009, it was announced that some adjustments would be made to the simplified characters. Experts acknowledged that some of the earlier character simplifications were problematic and inhibited understanding. Academics expressed support for the concept of "know traditional, write simplified" and specifically rejected the idea of reintroducing traditional characters as too costly and impractical.[57] They cited a survey of ninety-one top-ranked senior classical Chinese literature and Chinese language students from Beijing Normal University testing their ability to write Traditional Characters, which only three students passed.[58]

See also

Notes

^a In Taiwan, traditional characters are officially known as "proper characters" (traditional Chinese: 體字; simplified Chinese: 正体字; pinyin: zhèngtǐ zì), while most Chinese speakers outside Taiwan, whether using simplified or traditional characters, refer to traditional characters as "complex characters" (simplified Chinese: 繁体字; traditional Chinese: 體字; pinyin: fántǐ zì).

References

  1. Keller, Andrée Tabouret. (1997). Vernacular Literacy: A Re-Evaluation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-823635-2
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Chao, Eileen; Wang, Eugene; Hsuan, Meng; Matloff, Norman. "The Chinese Language, Ever Evolving". Room for Debate. The New York Times.
  3. Ba Jin. (1999) "随想录·汉字改革".《汉字文化》.Issue 4, 1999. Beijing.
  4. Ramsey, S. Robert (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-691-01468-5.
  5. 1 2 Norman, Jerry (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press. p. 81. ISBN 0-521-29653-6.
  6. 1 2 Karlgren, Bernhard (1974). Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974. Originally published in 1923. p. 1205.
  7. "说文解字爱的解释". Zdic.net. Retrieved 2014-09-27.
  8. 1 2 Gunde, Richard. (2002). Culture and Customs of China. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-30876-4
  9. 1 2 Hodge, Robert; Louie, Kam (1998). The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons. Psychology Press. pp. 62–64.
  10. "演講紀錄". Theme.taipei.gov.tw. 2005-03-31. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  11. 1 2 Macaraeg, Ruel A. (2006), The "Success" of Chinese Script Reform: A Critique of Assessment Methodology in China's Character Simplification Program
  12. Aldrich, John (1995), "Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule", Statistical Science, 10 (4): 364–376, doi:10.1214/ss/1177009870, JSTOR 2246135
  13. Street, Brian V.; Regie Stites (2001). Literacy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives. London: Routledge. pp. 171–187. ISBN 978-0-415-23451-1.
  14. 方舟子. "简体字引起混乱吗?". Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  15. Varadi, Joe. "Simplified Chinese?". Archived from the original on October 26, 2009. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  16. "汉字规范的换位思考". 中国语言文字网. 2005-07-08. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  17. https://web.archive.org/web/20090620012048/http://www.hdpark.net/html/xinwen/shiping/2009/0418/927.html. Archived from the original on June 20, 2009. Retrieved May 3, 2009. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  18. Liu, Jennifer Li-chia. Yan, Margaret Mian (1997). Interactions I-II: A Cognitive Approach to Beginning Chinese. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21122-0.
  19. 方舟子. "再谈简化字". Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  20. 1 2 Kaplan, Robert; Baldauf, Richard (2008). Language Planning and Policy in Asia. Multilingual Matters. pp. 69, 71, 74.
  21. 1 2 Mair, Victor (2006-12-13). "Simplified characters inside and outside of the People's Republic of China". Pinyin News. Retrieved 2012-03-02.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "The Chinese Character—no simple matter". China Heritage Quarterly. Australian National University. Retrieved 2012-03-02.
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Poser, Bill (2007-01-03). "Notes on Chinese Character Simplification". Language Log. Retrieved 2012-03-02.
  24. Smith, Arieh. "Reflections on China: The folly of simplified characters". The Chicago Maroon. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  25. Defrancis, John (1984). The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, p. 117. University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-0866-5.
  26. 1 2 McBride-Chang, Catherine. Chen, Hsuan-Chih. (2003). Reading development in Chinese Children. Praeger/Greenwood publishing. ISBN 0-89789-809-5.
  27. The same radical was similarly removed in the simplification of "clouds" 雲 to 云.
  28. The traditional system of radicals is no more arbitrary than, by analogy, the traditional order of the letters of the English alphabet, or the English names for the letters, all of these being to varying extents agreed-upon standards which have enjoyed supreme precedence in their respective orthographic traditions. Any attempt to simplify or reform established standards must demonstrate extreme utility to be worth the risk of the confusion and complications that inevitably arise when such arbitrary standards are changed to new standards, especially when the new standards are just as arbitrary as the old ones, if not more so.
  29. Japanese Simplications
  30. Advantages and Disadvantages on Traditional Characters vs Simplified Characters, 2002, published by Government of City of Taipei, Republic of China In point 3, it reads "Traditional characters is aesthetically pleasing, and therefore it is widely used by people who practice Chinese calligraphy throughout the world including countries such as Japan, Korea as well as mainland China. It is because traditional characters is able to express the artistic essence of calligraphy."
  31. "Taiwan promotes traditional Chinese characters". Etaiwannews.com. 2009-01-01. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  32. "Cross-strait cooperation may help Chinese become world heritage". Etaiwannews.com. 2008-12-30. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  33. Archived March 30, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  34. 1 2 3 Zhou, Raymond (2008-03-22). "'Jianti' and 'fanti' are equally good". China Daily. Retrieved 2012-03-04.
  35. 1 2 3 Xing, Janet Zhiqun (2006). Teaching and Learning Chinese as a Foreign Language: A Pedagogical Grammar. Hong Kong University Press. pp. 31–32, 105, 323. ISBN 978-962-209-763-6.
  36. "ROC to use traditional Chinese characters for official documents, websites". Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles. 2011-06-16. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  37. "Ma correct to advocate use of traditional Chinese characters". The China Post. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  38. Norden, Bryan W. Van (2011). Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy. Hackett Publishing. p. 242. ISBN 9781603846158. Most contemporary Chinese language programs at U.S. colleges and universities emphasize the simplified form.
  39. Tsu, Jing (2011). Sound and Script in Chinese Diaspora. Harvard University Press. pp. 4–6.
  40. Kraus, Richard (1991). Brushes with Power: Modern Politics and the Chinese Art of Calligraphy. University of California Press. p. 163.
  41. Guo, Yingjie. (2004). Routledge. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary China: The Search for National Identity under reform. ISBN 0-415-32264-2.
  42. Rogers, Henry. (2005) Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-23464-0.
  43. 1 2 3 Farr, Marcia. Radloff, Sharon M. Reynolds, Rachel. Hymes, Dell. Isaacson, Carl. Judd, Elliot. Koliussi, Lukia. Lindquist, Julie. Markelis, Daiva. Miller, Laura. Miller, Peggy J. Morgan, Marcyliena. Nardini, Gloria. Cho, Grace. Gundlach, Robert. Rohsenow, John S. Moss, Beverly. Ethnolinguistic Chicago: Language and Literacy in the City's Neighborhoods. (2003). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-4345-0. p. 338.
  44. Taiwan affairs office under PRC. "Gwytb.gov.cn." Mainland literature embraced in Taiwan. Retrieved on 2009-01-12.
  45. Planning Chinese Characters: Reaction, Evolution Or Revolution. Zhao, Shouhui Zhao. Baldauf, Richard B. Baldauf, Richard B. Jr. Springer publishing, 2007. ISBN 0-387-48574-0, ISBN 978-0-387-48574-4. pg 216.
  46. Yang, Yishan. Whispers and Moans: Interviews with the Men and Women of Hong Kong's Sex industry. (2006). Blacksmith Books. ISBN 962-86732-8-9. p. 17.
  47. "漢字擬統一 正體字為主-香港大紀元". The Epoch Times. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  48. "韓國媒體報道有誤 中日韓並無協議統一漢字". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  49. Wang Gan, 2008-03-02, 五十年内,废除简化字如何
  50. "宋祖英等联名提议:小学应增加繁体字教育". NetEase. 2008-03-13. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  51. "教育部部长周济表示不考虑"小学增设繁体字教育"". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  52. 1 2 "马英九:台湾不会改简体字 但会用繁、简对照". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  53. http://news.5s5w.com/4/2008/20080314_content_45347.shtml Archived April 21, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
  54. Taipei Times - Thousands gather to set record (2 Jan 2009)
  55. jlee (2009-03-10). "台籍代表:建议两岸联手为中文繁体字"申遗"". Zhuanti.youth.cn. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  56. Zhang, Jessica (12 March 2009). "Heated debate on abolishing simplified Chinese character". Retrieved 28 January 2014.
  57. "新规范汉字表即将公布 改进部分简化字". 南方网. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
  58. "專家:恢復繁體字不可取 建議"識繁用簡"". 中新網. 2009-04-09. Retrieved 2014-02-09.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/17/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.