Beginners should skip writing characters by hand, use computers instead: teachers

Sino-Platonic Papers is rereleasing a much more recent issue this week. This issue, no. 102 from March 2000, is by two university professors of Mandarin Chinese who advocate a “penless” approach for beginning students of Mandarin: i.e., students should use specially designed software on computers to write characters and not bother at first with learning to write characters by hand.
Here is the abstract:

In view of the fact that hand-writing Chinese characters is the most frustrating factor in Chinese language learning, we propose in this article a fairly radical approach that could bring a fundamental change into Chinese language teaching. Our suggestion is abolishing the requirement for writing Chinese characters by hand at the beginning of Chinese language learning process, and utilizing Chinese word-processing software instead to help the students

  1. bypass the difficulties entailed by character hand-writing,
  2. achieve an early development of writing skill, and
  3. reach a comprehensive improvement of their language competence.

In this article, we have offered our assessment on the following three aspects:

  1. The degree to which character hand-writing constitutes a major obstacle to early Chinese language learning;
  2. The benefits of using Chinese word-processing software in acquisition of Chinese language skills;
  3. The side effects from adopting this approach and the possibilities of their overcoming.

We believe this proposal addresses one of the most pressing issues in today’s Chinese language teaching, and should generate fruitful discussions among Chinese language teachers, as well as general interest in the field of foreign language teaching.

The full article is here: Penless Chinese Character Reproduction, by Theresa Jen and Ping Xu. This is a quick-loading HTML file.

The “penless” approach also has a website: Penless Chinese Language Learning: A Computer-Assisted Approach. Has anyone tried the software available there?

Google’s new ‘cross-language information retrieval’

Google has just launched a “cross-language information retrieval” (CLIR) function to Google Translate.

Here is how Google describes it:

Now, you can search for something in your own language (for example, English) and search the web in another language (for example, French). If you’re looking for wine tasting events in Bordeaux while on vacation in France, just type “wine tasting events in Bordeaux” into the search box on the “Search results” tab on Google Translate. You’ll then get French search results and a (machine) translation of these search results into English. Similarly, an Arabic speaker could look for restaurants in New York, by searching for “???? ???????”; or a Chinese speaker could look for documents on machine learning on the English web by looking for “????”.

These are the languages available, though for now these are not available in all combinations but mainly to or from English. (German and French are the only languages listed that can work with each other rather than English.)

  • Arabic
  • English
  • French
  • German
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Korean
  • Mandarin (in traditional characters)
  • Mandarin (in simplified characters)
  • Portuguese
  • Russian
  • Spanish

sources:

Japanese literacy–an SPP reissue

Here’s another re-release from the archives of Sino-Platonic Papers: Computers and Japanese Literacy: Nihonzin no Yomikaki Nôryoku to Konpyûta, by J. Marshall Unger of the Ohio State University’s Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures. The link above is to the PDF version (1.2 MB), which reproduces the original exactly.

This is a parallel text in Japanese (in romanization) and English, so if any of you want to practice reading romaji, here’s your chance.

The English text alone is available in HTML: Computers and Japanese Literacy.

The essay touches on many of themes Unger explores in depth in his books, all of which have excerpts available here on Pinyin Info: The Fifth Generation Fallacy, Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan, and Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning.

Here is the opening, in both English and Japanese (in romanization).

Watakusi wa saikin, gendai no konpyûta siyô to Nihongo ni tuite kenkyu site orimasu. Gengogakusya mo konpyûta no nôryoku ya mondaiten ni tuite iken o happyo suru sekinin ga aru to omou kara desu. I am currently engaged in research on contemporary computer usage and the Japanese language. Linguists too, I believe, have a responsibility to present their views on the potentials and problems of computers.
Sate, Amerika no zen- Kôsei Kyôiku tyôkan, John Gardner-si no kotoba de hazimetai to omoimasu. Sore wa “aizyô nasi no hihan to hihan nasi no aizyô (Eigo de iu to, “unloving criticism and uncritical love”) to iu kotoba desu. Gardner-si wa, Amerikazin no aikokusyugi ni tuite Amerika o sukosi de mo hihan site wa ikenai to syutyô suru hito wa kangaetigai da, aizyô nasi ni syakai ya bunka no ketten o hihan bakari suru koto wa motiron warui keredo, hihan sore zitai o kiratte kokusuisyugi o susumeru koto mo syôrai no tame ni yoku nai, to iimasita. Kono koto wa bokoku igai no syakai to bunka ni tai suru baai de mo onazi de wa nai desyô ka? Gengogakusya ya rekisigakusya mo “aizyô nasi no hihan to hihan nasi no aizyô” to iu ryôkyokutan o sakeru yô ni sita hô ga ii to omou no desu. Watakusi wa Nihon no gengo to bunka o senmon ni site, Nihon ni tai site aizyô o motte orimasu kara koso, Nihongo no hyôkihô ya Nihonzin no yomikaki nôryoku ni tuite no teisetu o mondai ni site iru wake desu. Iwayuru zyôhôka syakai no zidai ni hairi, ippan no hitobito ga pasokon ya wâpuro o kozin-yô ni tukau yô ni naru ni turete, nettowâku tûsin, kyôiku-yô sohutowea, sôzôteki na puroguramingu nado ga yôkyû sarete kite iru desyô. Mosi sono konpon ni aru yomikaki nôryoku no henka to genzyô o gokai sureba, gôriteki na konpyûta siyôhô o kaihatu dekinai darô to omou kara desu. Let me begin by quoting the former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, John Gardner. I am thinking of his phrase “unloving criticism and uncritical love.” By this, he meant that it was wrong for proponents of American patriotism to oppose even the slightest criticism of the United States: although it is bad to dwell unsympathetically on finding fault with social and cultural shortcomings, it is equally bad for the future of society to advance nationalism and eschew all criticism. I think that this is also true when considering foreign societies and cultures. Linguists and historians would do well to avoid the twin extremes of “unloving criticism and uncritical love.” As someone professionally involved with the language and culture of Japan, I have an affection for the country, but for that very reason, I wish to call into question the accepted theory of Japanese script and literacy. As we enter the age of the so-called informational society, and as more and more ordinary people begin to use computers on an individual basis, demands on network communications, educational software, creative programming, and so on, will steadily increase. Unless we understand the present situation and history of literacy, which underlies all these applications, we cannot hope to develop a rational basis for computer usage.
Sate, hyôi mozi to iu kotoba wa Nihongo ni tuite no hon ni yoku dete imasu kara kokugogaku no yôgo da to itte mo ii hodo desu ga, hyôi mozi to iu mono wa zissai ni sonzai site iru desyô ka? Kyakkanteki ni kangaete miru to, dono gengo mo konponteki ni wa hanasu mono desu. Mozi wa syakaiteki, rekisiteki na men ga arimasu ga, mozi wa kotoba no imi no moto de wa arimasen. Tatoeba, itizi mo yomenai mômoku no hito de mo, hoka no syôgai ga nai kagiri, bokokugo ga kanzen ni hanaseru yô ni narimasu. Sitagatte, hanasi-kotoba to wa mattaku kankei ga nai mozi nado to iu mono wa muimi na gainen desu. Gengo no imi wa gengo no kôzô kara hassei si, mozi wa sono han’ei de sika nai wake desu. Kore wa toku ni kore kara no konpyûta o kangaeru toki ni wasurete wa ikemasen…. The term “ideographic characters” appears so often in books on the Japanese language that one might say it has become a stock phrase of Japanese linguistics. I wonder, however, whether such things as “ideographs” actually exist. When examined objectively, all languages are fundamentally speech. Characters are not the source of the meanings of words, although they do have their social and historical aspects. For example, blind people who cannot read a single character can nonetheless speak their native tongues perfectly, unless they suffer from some other handicap. The very idea of characters totally divorced from speech is therefore meaningless. For the meaning of language emerges from the structure of language, of which writing is merely a reflection. It is particularly important that we not forget this when we consider the computers of the future….

This was first published in January 1988 as issue no. 6 of Sino-Platonic Papers.

software to test Mandarin pronunciation

Chinese scientists have developed a computer program to test how well people speak Mandarin Chinese.

The technology will help improve oral testing of Chinese and promote Mandarin Chinese both at home and abroad, said Fu Yong, former deputy director of the State Language Work Committee.

The technology was jointly developed by the Acoustics Institute and the Software Institute under the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Lab experiments show that more than 98 percent of the results given by the computer evaluation system were as same as the results given by linguists, said Ju Qi, deputy director of the Acoustics Institute.

The system will be introduced to Mandarin Chinese examinations in Hong Kong’s middle schools and universities.

source: China resorts to computer to test Mandarin Chinese, People’s Daily, via Xinhua, May 23, 2007

Chinese Characters as a High-Maintenance Script and the Consequences Thereof

The following is a guest post by Prof. Victor H. Mair of the University of Pennsylvania.

——————

Anyone who has taken it upon him/herself to become literate in Chinese characters realizes what a tremendous commitment is required to master the thousands of different graphs that are necessary for reading and writing. Great as the initial expenditure of time and energy is, one must continue to practice reading and writing the characters on an almost daily basis if one is to maintain a workable degree of proficiency. Furthermore, since character production is a skill that requires a high level of neuro-muscular coordination, failure to practice them regularly inevitably results in a rapid deterioration of the ability to write with facility.

In the world of the 21st century, however, there are countless distractions that compete with the Chinese script for the attention of its users: TV, movies, computers, cell phones, video games, iPods, sports, music, dance, and so forth. Every minute or hour devoted to such devices and diversions means less time for practicing the demanding script. In addition, many of these competitors directly or indirectly displace or obviate the script itself. For example, the vast majority of Sinitic language inputting for computers is done via pinyin (Romanization), and the same is true for short text messaging on cell phones which is so ubiquitous in East Asia. Countless studies and endless testimonies from individual users have shown that reliance on computers and other electronic devices to produce written character texts dramatically reduces the ability of users of the Chinese script to form the characters accurately and, to a lesser extent, even diminishes a reader’s ability to distinguish characters.

Some of this was pointed out already in Jennifer 8. Lee’s lengthy and well-researched article entitled “Where the PC Is Mightier Than the Pen: In China, Computer Use Erodes Traditional Handwriting, Stirring a Cultural Debate,” which appeared in the Technology News section of the New York Times on February 1, 2001. Here’s an abstract of Ms. Lee’s article, which was illustrated with photographs:

Use of computers for word processing appears to be taking a toll on Chinese speakers’ ability to write characters by hand; many Chinese fear that computer could undermine written language, which has great cultural significance for Chinese people, but others say the point of language is communication and nothing more; erosion of traditional handwriting skills arises from forcing complexities of Chinese language to conform to standard Roman-alphabet keyboard.

William Hannas, an expert on East Asian writing systems, has perceptively and persuasively pointed out that character production and recognition are intimately linked:

Educators speak too facilely of the distinction between character “recognition skills” and the skills needed to produce them by hand, as if the two were completely independent. In fact, there is much experimental and anecdotal evidence to support a connection between the two types of skills. As one’s ability physically to write Chinese characters, stroke by stroke, improves, so it seems does one’s ability to recognize them and distinguish one from the other. Conversely, as writing skills deteriorate from lack of practice, so does recognition. Primitive motor skills seem to play a part in reinforcing memory here as in other areas. {Original note: Kaiho Hiroyuki summarizes the results of experiments that demonstrate that character recognition is affected by users’ ability to draw them and that users’ appraisal of a character’s complexity depends more on stroke count than on the number of lines actually present in the character. “Nihongo no hyôki kôdô no ninchi shinrigakuteki bunseki,” Nihongogaku, 6 (1987), 65-71.}

If this phenomenon were related to handwriting specifically, literacy would have been lost in the West entirely by now, for most Westerners do their “writing” today on keyboards. But the fact is, typing has reinforced Westerners’ “hands on” awareness of the language by virtue of the direct one-to-one correspondence between discrete hand motions and the letters that make up the words. Character coding schemes, as we have seen, have little or no direct physical connection with the structure of the character — certainly none that bears any relationship to the specific motor skills that are exercised in forming characters. Although it seems unlikely, for all of the reasons given above, that nonphonetic coding will emerge as the primary means of processing Chinese characters for a significant part of the character-literate East Asian population, if this were to happen, the technique could lead eventually to a deterioration of users’ ability to deal with the characters generally. In other words, the same machines that were supposed to give the characters a new lease on life may contain the seeds of the characters’ destruction. {Asia’s Orthographic Dilemma (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997), pp. 271-271, 314. 322.}

This is all the more true of phonetic inputting schemes for characters, which — though extremely easy to learn and use — are completely divorced from the shapes of the characters.

The diminution of the ability to produce and recognize characters resulting from electronic interventions has already reached a significant stage. As the number of distractions and displacements increases, which is a virtual certainty considering the rapid pace of invention and the growing impact of such devices, the level of dysfunctionality in character production and recognition is bound to advance from significant to serious.

Such competitors (computers, BlackBerries, and so on) pose far less of a threat to alphabetic scripts than to the characters for the following reasons:

  1. Alphabetic scripts require a far smaller initial investment and a fraction of the effort for maintenance.
  2. Many of the electronic devices mentioned above actually reinforce or improve writing in alphabetical scripts (spell checkers, grammar checkers, and so on [e-mail style, of course, is another matter altogether] — there are no comparable tools for Chinese).
  3. When one forgets how to write a character, one is usually stymied for that particular morpheme, whereas misspelling a word generally presents no obstacle to expression or understanding.

The implications of electronic information processing devices for the Chinese script are only beginning to be felt. As they increase in scope and availability, the adverse effects for character production and recognition will grow exponentially till they reach a genuine crisis.

only 33% of Chinese small businesses use computers: study

Only 33 percent of small businesses (1-99 employees) in China have a computer, according to a recent study by Access Markets International.

China’s low rate of PC penetration among small businesses, however, is higher than that of some other highly populous countries in Asia, namely the Philippines at 24 percent, India at 22 percent, and Indonesia at 18 percent.

About 40% of the non-PC SBs in India, over a third in China, and about a quarter each in Indonesia and the Philippines have expressed their intent to buy PCs in the next 12 months….

Most of the non-PC SBs in these four countries are small — with 1-9 employees each. The bulk of SBs in these countries belongs to the wholesale and retail vertical sector. The exception is China, where more than 50% of non-PC SBs are in the manufacturing vertical.

What hinders them from buying PCs? The primary hurdle is the belief that PCs are not relevant to their line of business. About 30% of non-PC SBs in India and 14% in China told AMI that they just have not thought about buying PCs. A significant portion of SBs believe that a simple fax and phone is enough for their business. Lack of knowledge about the installation and operation of PCs is also a powerful deterrence.

source: Huge untapped market for non-PC SBs opening up, AMI Partners, November 13, 2006

via Most Small Chinese Businesses Don’t Use Computers, China Tech News, November 20, 2006

Opera’s translation widget

The latest version of Opera, my favorite Web browser, now has a feature called “widgets.” These are basically the same as Firefox’s extensions. (Many of the features Firefox gets credit for were taken from Opera, so turnabout is fair play.)

Of particular interest to readers of this site is the GTranslation widget, which ties in with Google’s and BabelFish’s translation engines. This will allow you to input text and even Web pages in [Mandarin] Chinese and view them in English. Well, sort-of English. But at least it’s free!

Thus, this widget is Opera’s equivalent of Firefox’s translation extensions.

GTranslation was written by Shoust.

I know that many of my readers are still tied to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. I strongly recommend trying Opera or Firefox, which are faster, more secure, and generally better in most every way.