The Chinese Language: Fact and Fanstasy: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
==Main points== | ==Main points== | ||
* There is not a unique "[[:en:Chinese language]]". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call [[:en:dialect]]s, others call [[:en:topolect]]s (a [[:en:calque]] of Chinese [[wikt:方言|方言]], fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "[[:en:regionalect]]s"), and still others would regard as separate [[:en:language]]s, many of which are not [[:en:Mutual intelligibility|mutually intelligible]]. One such variant, based on the [[Beijing dialect|speech]] of the [[:en:Beijing]] area, has been chosen as the [[:en:standard language]] in the [[:en:People's Republic of China]], and is now known as "[[:en:Putonghua]]", or common language. | * There is not a unique "[[:en:Chinese language]]". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call [[:en:dialect]]s, others call [[:en:topolect]]s (a [[:en:calque]] of Chinese [[wikt:方言|方言]], fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "[[:en:regionalect]]s"), and still others would regard as separate [[:en:language]]s, many of which are not [[:en:Mutual intelligibility|mutually intelligible]]. One such variant, based on the [[Beijing dialect|speech]] of the [[:en:Beijing]] area, has been chosen as the [[:en:standard language]] in the [[:en:People's Republic of China]], and is now known as "[[:en:Putonghua]]", or common language. | ||
* The [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[ | * The [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[:en:Phonology|phonological]] basis, shown in the phonetic elements common in more than 95% of [[:en:Chinese character]]s. Unfortunately they are missing from many common characters, and were removed from numerous "simplified" characters, causing many scholars to miss the point that they are a necessary resource for Chinese readers. It is not a brilliant [[:en:Ideogram|ideographic]] script; it is a poor [[:en:Phoneme|phonetic]] script. | ||
* Although there are characters in the [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] that visually represent concepts, such as 一 二 三 for ''one'', ''two'', and ''three'', Chinese writing is not ideographic in the sense that the symbols represent ideas divorced from language. There can be no such thing as a completely ideographic writing system, where there would be [[:en:symbol]]s to stand for all possible individual concepts and where [[morphemes]] or [[phoneme]]s would play no significant role in writing individual words. For instance, most Chinese words are written as [[:en:Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | * Although there are characters in the [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] that visually represent concepts, such as 一 二 三 for ''one'', ''two'', and ''three'', Chinese writing is not ideographic in the sense that the symbols represent ideas divorced from language. There can be no such thing as a completely ideographic writing system, where there would be [[:en:symbol]]s to stand for all possible individual concepts and where [[:en:morphemes]] or [[:en:phoneme]]s would play no significant role in writing individual words. For instance, most Chinese words are written as [[:en:Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | ||
* The Chinese script, with its huge number of [[:en:Chinese character|characters]], its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the [[:en:literacy]] improvement efforts of the [[Chinese people|Chinese society]], and needs to be replaced by a more efficient [[:en:writing system]] if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization. | * The Chinese script, with its huge number of [[:en:Chinese character|characters]], its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the [[:en:literacy]] improvement efforts of the [[:en:Chinese people|Chinese society]], and needs to be replaced by a more efficient [[:en:writing system]] if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization. | ||
==Six myths== | ==Six myths== | ||
Revision as of 06:36, 29 January 2010
| The Chinese Language | |
|---|---|
 Cover of the paperback edition | |
| Author | en:John DeFrancis |
| Language | English |
| Genre(s) | Nonfiction |
| Publisher | University of Hawai'i Press |
| Publication date | 1984 |
| Media type | Hardcover, Paperback |
| Pages | 330 |
| ISBN | ISBN 0-8284-0866-5, ISBN 0-8248-1068-6 (paperback) |
Local Lede
Cloned en:The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. See discussion page.
English Lede 2010-01-29
The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy is a book written by en:John DeFrancis, published in 1984 by University of Hawaii Press. The book describes some of the concepts underlying the en:Chinese language and en:writing system, and gives the author's position on a number of ideas about the language.
Main points
- There is not a unique "en:Chinese language". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call en:dialects, others call en:topolects (a en:calque of Chinese 方言, fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "en:regionalects"), and still others would regard as separate en:languages, many of which are not mutually intelligible. One such variant, based on the speech of the en:Beijing area, has been chosen as the en:standard language in the en:People's Republic of China, and is now known as "en:Putonghua", or common language.
- The Chinese writing system has a heavy phonological basis, shown in the phonetic elements common in more than 95% of en:Chinese characters. Unfortunately they are missing from many common characters, and were removed from numerous "simplified" characters, causing many scholars to miss the point that they are a necessary resource for Chinese readers. It is not a brilliant ideographic script; it is a poor phonetic script.
- Although there are characters in the Chinese writing system that visually represent concepts, such as 一 二 三 for one, two, and three, Chinese writing is not ideographic in the sense that the symbols represent ideas divorced from language. There can be no such thing as a completely ideographic writing system, where there would be en:symbols to stand for all possible individual concepts and where en:morphemes or en:phonemes would play no significant role in writing individual words. For instance, most Chinese words are written as phono-semantic compounds that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element.
- The Chinese script, with its huge number of characters, its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the en:literacy improvement efforts of the Chinese society, and needs to be replaced by a more efficient en:writing system if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization.
Six myths
A good portion of the book is devoted to debunking what DeFrancis calls the "six myths" of Chinese characters. The myths are:
- The Ideographic Myth: Chinese characters represent ideas instead of sounds.
- The Universality Myth: Chinese characters enable speakers of mutually unintelligible languages to read each other's writing. (Also, to the extent this is possible, this is due to a special property that only Chinese characters have.) Furthermore, Chinese from thousands of years ago is immediately readable by any literate Chinese today.
- The Emulatability Myth: The nature of Chinese characters can be copied to create a universal script, or to help people with learning disabilities learn to read.
- The Monosyllabic Myth: All words in Chinese are one syllable long. Alternatively, any syllable found in a Chinese dictionary can stand alone as a word.
- The Indispensability Myth: Chinese characters are necessary to represent Chinese.
- The Successfulness Myth: Chinese characters are responsible for a high level of literacy in East Asian countries. (A weaker version of this myth is simply that despite the flaws of Chinese characters, East Asian countries still have a high level of literacy.)
All of these are dealt with in separate chapters, at length, in the book.
