The Chinese Language: Fact and Fanstasy: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| image = [[Image:Defrancis.jpg|Cover of the paperback edition]] | | image = [[Image:Defrancis.jpg|Cover of the paperback edition]] | ||
| image_caption = Cover of the paperback edition | | image_caption = Cover of the paperback edition | ||
| author = [[John DeFrancis]] | | author = [[:en:John DeFrancis]] | ||
| illustrator = | | illustrator = | ||
| cover_artist = | | cover_artist = | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
== English Lede 2010-01-29 == | == English Lede 2010-01-29 == | ||
'''''The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy''''' is a book written by [[John DeFrancis]], published in 1984 by University of Hawaii Press. The book describes some of the concepts underlying the [[Chinese language]] and [[writing system]], and gives the author's position on a number of ideas about the language. | '''''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== | ==Main points== | ||
* There is not a unique "[[Chinese language]]". There is a group of related ways of speaking, which some may call [[dialect]]s, others call [[topolect]]s (a [[calque]] of Chinese [[wikt:方言|方言]], fāngyán; DeFrancis uses the term "[[regionalect]]s"), and still others would regard as separate [[language]]s, many of which are not [[Mutual intelligibility|mutually intelligible]]. One such variant, based on the [[Beijing dialect|speech]] of the [[Beijing]] area, has been chosen as the [[standard language]] in the [[People's Republic of China]], and is now known as "[[Putonghua]]", or common language. | * There is not a unique "[[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 [[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 [[Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[ | * The [[:en:Written Chinese|Chinese writing system]] has a heavy [[P:en:honology|phonological]] basis, shown in the phonetic elements common in more than 95% of [[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 [[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 [[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 [[Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | * Although there are characters in the [[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 [[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 [[Chinese character#Phono-semantic compounds|phono-semantic compounds]] that include a non-ideographic, phonetic element. | ||
* The Chinese script, with its huge number of [[Chinese character|characters]], its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the [[literacy]] improvement efforts of the [[Chinese people|Chinese society]], and needs to be replaced by a more efficient [[writing system]] if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization. | * The Chinese script, with its huge number of [[Chinese character|characters]], its complexity and its irregularities, is harmful to the [[literacy]] improvement efforts of the [[Chinese people|Chinese society]], and needs to be replaced by a more efficient [[writing system]] if China is to achieve the benefits of modernization. | ||
