Korean university students show little knowledge of Chinese characters

A group of 384 freshmen at Sungkyunkwan University in South Korea were tested on their knowledge of hanja (Chinese characters, as are sometimes used in writing words in Korean). Although this sample isn’t particularly large, I haven’t seen any indication that anyone believes it is not representative of Korean university freshmen as a whole. The results — at least for those who believe that Chinese characters still play a major role in literacy in Korean — are fairly dramatic:

  • 20 percent couldn’t write their own names in Chinese characters
  • 77 percent couldn’t write their mother’s name in Chinese characters
  • 83 percent couldn’t write their father’s name in Chinese characters
  • 71 percent couldn’t write “new student” in Chinese characters
  • 96 percent couldn’t write “economy” in Chinese characters
  • 98 percent couldn’t write “encyclopedia” in Chinese characters

And as for reading Chinese characters?

  • 93 percent couldn’t read the word for “ambition” as written in Chinese characters
  • 96 percent couldn’t read the word for “honor” as written in Chinese characters
  • 99 percent couldn’t read the word for “compromise” as written in Chinese characters

Remember, this refers to students at a prominent university.

A pro-character editorial in response to this states:

Seventy percent of Korean words including most conceptual and abstract nouns are made of Chinese characters. Terminology used in humanities, social studies and natural science are mostly Chinese characters. It is difficult to understand the meaning of words by pronunciation alone, without learning about the meanings of the Chinese characters that represent them. Words such as “recurrence”, “repatriation” and “homing” contain the Chinese character that stands for “return.” Without knowing that character, you must memorize each of those words separately by sound.

Whoever wrote that needs to be sent to the board to write “Chinese characters are not words” one hundred times. But I don’t know what it would take for the author to realize that learning words by sound rather than Chinese characters is entirely normal — exactly what native speakers of languages the world over do.

For a little more information on the complications in the use of Chinese characters with Korean, see Asia’s Orthographic Dilemma by William C. Hannas, especially the sections on the so-called homonym problem and the supposed transitivity [of Chinese characters] across languages.

sources:

See also Occidentalism’s thread on this, which already has more than thirty comments.

indicator of character frequency: a suggestion for programmers

It occurred to me the other day that many people, especially language learners, might find it useful to have a tool that would take text written in Chinese characters and mark it up according to the frequency of use of the individual characters within.

Here’s a sentence from a recent CCP rant news item that can serve as an example:

非驴非马的“网语”不再满足于偏安网络一隅,正迅速向着其它媒体渗透,因而加剧了报纸电视等文字语言的混乱,玷污了汉语言文化的纯洁。
(Fēilǘfēimǎ de “wǎng yǔ” bùzài mǎnzú yú piān’ān wǎngluò yīyú, zhèng xùnsù xiàngzhe qítā méitǐ shèntòu, yīn’ér jiājù le bàozhǐ diànshì děng wénzì yǔyán de hùnluàn, diànwū le Hànyǔ yán wénhuà de chúnjié.)

Predictably, many of the characters here are extremely common. Others, however, would not even be covered under China’s definition of literacy. I’ve separated these characters into different classes, based on their frequencies of usage and applied different colors to each class:

  • character frequency: 1-100 (class i-c)
  • character frequency: 101-500 (class c-d)
  • character frequency: 501-1000 (class d-m)
  • character frequency: 1001-1500 (class m-md)
  • character frequency: 1501-2000 (class md-mm)
  • character frequency: beyond 2000 (class mmplus)

So the sample sentence would look like this:

的“语”电视

(Those of you reading this through RSS may need to visit the site to see what I’m talking about.)

The coding I used looks like this, though other approaches are possible:

<span class=”c-d” title=”101-500″>非</span><span class=”mmplus” title=”2001+”>驴</span>….

I added titles to make this more accessible.

Perhaps adding a summary would be useful:

1-100              24.6%
101-500           42.1%
501-1000          8.8%
1001-1500         14.0%
1501-2000          1.8%
2001+              8.8%

This approach could also be used for Japanese — for example, to highlight all kanji not included in the Jōyō kanji, or to highlight different sets of the Kyōiku kanji. For that matter, it could also be applied to written words in English or other languages that use alphabets, though conjugutions, plurals, and the like would complicate matters.

So, would anyone like to try coming up with one of these? Or has it been done already?

one possible resource:

some common character slips in China

Joel of Danwei has translated the gist of a list of the top errors in Mandarin use for 2006, as submitted by the readers of Yǎowénjiáozì (咬文嚼字), a magazine in China. (Yǎowénjiáozì is tricky to translate. Maybe “Pedantry,” though that sounds a bit harsh.)

I’ve reproduced the errors relating specifically to character use (7 out of 10), making the characters larger in order to help make the distinctions clearer. See Joel’s post for details.

  1. (xiàng) instead of (xiàng)
  2. 丙戍年 (bǐng shù nián) instead of 丙戌年 (bǐngxū nián)
  3. 神州[六号] (Shénzhōu [liù hào]) instead of 神舟[六号] (Shén Zhōu [liù hào]) (Those responsible for naming the spacecraft, however, certainly intended the name to remind people of “the Divine Land” (Shénzhōu, 神州, i.e. China).)
  4. () instead of ()
  5. 美發 (měi fā) instead of 美髮 (měifà) (The characters 發 () and 髮 () were both given the simplified form of 发, so people in China often end up with the wrong character when trying to use the traditional form of 发.)
  6. 启示 (qǐshì) instead of 启事 (qǐshì)
  7. 哈蜜瓜 (hā mì guā) instead of 哈密瓜 (Hāmìguā)

sources:

Taiwan premier calls for support for romanization of Taiwanese

Taiwan’s premier, Su Tseng-chang (Sū Zhēn-chāng / 蘇貞昌), has instructed the Ministry of Education to back the Tái-Luó romanization system for Taiwanese.

Unless I’ve been misled by the local media, which has been known to confuse various romanization systems, this romanization system is simply what the Ministry of Education approved back in October 2006. (Tai-Luo means “Taiwan Romanization,” which is not a particularly specific name.) So the statement is likely simply as speculated in the media: that Su is seeking to bolster his “green” and “localization” credentials ahead of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s choice of a candidate for the 2008 presidential election. It’s hard to know if this is simply lip service or something that will lead to increased support for the romanization of Hoklo (Taiwanese), probably the former.

Su made the statement during a meeting last week with the head of the Taiwan Society, Chet Yang (Yáng Wén-jiā / 楊文嘉 / Yang Wen-chia). The Taiwan Society, an umbrella organization for pro-Taiwan groups, backs the same romanization system.

sources and further reading:

Beijing to turn some textbook readings into cartoons

Portions of some textbooks in the PRC are being turned into animated cartoons for primary- and secondary-school students.

Wang Ying, the general manager of the Children’s Art and Play Theater Co. and chief organizer of the activity, described this as “an innovative move to further develop cultural products for 367 million people in China aged under 18.”

The scripts for the screenplays are being selected through a nationwide competition.

The cartoons will cover such subjects as ancient poems, fairy tales, and foreign novels.

For more information, see the official website.

source: Chinese youngsters to enjoy cartoon plays based on textbooks, Xinhua, October 13, 2005

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.

China’s script-reform officials remark on ‘Internet language’

A few weeks ago the Guangming Daily asked several authorities their ideas on “Internet language” (wǎngluò yǔyán / 网络语言), the mix of abbreviated English and Pinyin along with slang that characterizes much of what is written on Internet chat services and the like.

Since three of those interviewed — Su Peicheng (Sū Péichéng / 苏培成), president of the PRC-government-sponsored Society for the Modernization of the Chinese Language (Zhōngguó Yǔwén Xiàndàihuà Xuéhuì); Qian Yuzhi (Qián Yùzhǐ / 钱玉趾), a member of the same group as Su; and Feng Zhiwei (Féng Zhìwěi / 冯志伟), a research fellow with the PRC Ministry of Education’s Institute of Applied Linguistics’s computational linguistics department — are in important positions related to script reform in China, their thoughts are worth noting. Not surprisingly, they aren’t particularly supportive of it. Su particularly stresses the need to instruct young people in the “harm” of using Internet language.

The fourth member of the group is Wu Zhiwei (Wǔ Zhìwěi / 武志伟), who works at the CCTV website.

source: Rúhé kàndài “Wǎngluò yǔyán” (如何看待“网络语言”), Guangming Ribao, December 7, 2006

some common character slips

image of '公义广告' with an editor's red pen correcting 义 to 益; the 'correction' is in the originalJoel of Danwei posts on a “public-service announcement” (gongyi guanggao), of sorts, that tells people “Every Chinese person should respect Chinese characters and use Chinese characters properly.” The problem, as the ad puts it, is that “there are a multitude of non-standard uses of Chinese characters in society; mistaken and variant characters are relatively common, harming the elegance and purity of Chinese characters.”

References, especially when written in so-called simplified characters, to the “elegance and purity” of Chinese characters might strike some as lacking in historical perspective if not as downright ironic. Compare, for example, the following:

(traditional) and (simplified)

(traditional) and 广 (simplified)

But, that aside, the ad contains an interesting list of 100 instances of commonly miswritten characters. (Whether all of these are really wrong would make a good subject for another post.)

This ad is, as Joel notes, a roundabout way of touting the Xiandai Hanyu cidian (现代汉语词典), which is one of if not the most popular dictionary in China. The fifth edition was issued last year.

Lü Shuxiang (呂叔湘 / 吕叔湘) (1904-1998), the editor in chief of the first edition of this dictionary, was a strong advocate of romanization, as can be seen in his excellent essay Comparing Chinese Characters and a Chinese Spelling Script — an evening conversation on the reform of Chinese characters (漢字和拼音字的 比較 —-漢字改革一 夕談 / 汉字和拼音字的 比较 —-汉字改革一 夕谈). (The English translation of this was made especially for Pinyin Info by Zhang Liqing, one of the associate editors of the ABC Chinese-English Comprehensive Dictionary.)

source: Characters in the public interest, Danwei, December 13, 2006