The '
Traditional Chinese characters' versus '
Simplified Chinese characters' debate (繁簡之爭, more recently: 正簡之爭) has existed for a long time among Chinese users. The debate has stirred up heated responses from supporters of both sides as it has implications of political ideology and cultural identity in
mainland China,
Hong Kong,
Taiwan and among overseas Chinese communities.
[1] Simplified characters here exclusively refer to those characters simplified by the
People's Republic of China. The effect of simplified Characters on the language remains controversial decades after their introduction.
Cultural legitimacy
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents say that the Chinese writing system has been changing for millennia: it has already passed through the
Oracle Script,
Bronzeware Script,
Seal Script and
Clerical Script stages. Moreover, some simplified characters are drawn from conventional abbreviated forms that have been in use for centuries such as the use of 礼 instead of 禮
[2], 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 (雨) 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".
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Opponents point out while some simplified characters were adopted from conventional abbreviated forms that have existed for a long time, they claim that the so-called "changes" through the history is merely alteration in writing styles, not in the structure of the characters, especially after the
Qin standardization. They also claim many other simplified characters were arbitrarily designed by the government of the PRC to pervert traditional Chinese culture for political reasons in order to carry out what the PRC viewed as modernization. Despite the fact that character simplication began in 1956 and had origins going back to the early 20th century before the founding of the PRC, and that character simplification was not a part of the Old Fours nor the Cultural Revolution (both starting in the mid 1960s), they claim character simplification, "
Anti-Four Olds" and the
Cultural Revolution were all treacherous acts of destruction of traditional Chinese culture. As a result of such "unnatural" evolution, many characteristics underlying various Chinese characters, including radicals, etymologies and phonetics were ignored and destroyed in their simplified form. One frequently-cited example of this argument is found in the character for "sage" or "holy", 圣 in simplified and 聖 in traditional. The simplified character removed the ''king'' radical (王), replacing it with ''soil'' (土). Opponents of simplification claim that the PRC government was politically motivated to simplify this character, to devalue religions and China's imperial past ("The kings and holy men are still just soil now"). Supporters of simplification note that 圣 is an ancient component used in characters like 怪, and that 圣 was used as a variant of 聖 before the Chinese Communist government even existed.
[3]
Literacy
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents feel that Simplified characters having less strokes make it easier to learn.
[4] Literacy rates have risen steadily in rural and urban areas since the simplification of the Chinese characters, though this rise in literacy may not necessarily be due to simplification alone.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Opponents argue that the literacy rates is determined by level of access to affordable
public education, and the literacy rates of Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan compare favorably, so simplification does not display an obvious correlation with literacy rate. For example, a 2007 update of
CIA ''
World Factbook'' lists the 2002/2003 literacy rate as 96.1% in Taiwan compared to 90.9% in
mainland China for the total population.
[5][6] The data showed that Taiwan, which uses Traditional Chinese characters, has a better literacy rate. The argument that literacy rates since simplification have risen in rural and urban areas is true, however, the comparison is generally made to compare the 1949 period, when as much as 90% of the Chinese citizens were peasants,
13 so statistically literacy rate have nowhere to go but up. In 2007
Beijing sources continue to publish articles about the improvement in literacy, and in all cases, the credit is given to better education systems, more training schools, better management of rural area.
[7][8] The communist party does not credit the literacy improvement due to simplified characters in every day news.
Nationalism over literacy
Pro-Traditional characters
★ The earliest members of the
Communist Party of China including intellectuals like
Lu Xun was convinced
alphabetization was necessary to improve literacy. The phonetic idea was also suggested by
Hu Shih in an open letter in 1919.
[9] The suggestion is that changes should begin with Simplified characters first, then eventually make way to an alphabet system. In fact, the members continued to pledge that alphabet system was the "ultimate objective".
9 In 1936 Mao told American journalist
Edgar Snow that latinized alphabets was a good instrument to overcome literacy.
[Sun, Chaofen. [2006] (2006). Chinese: A Linguuistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521823803.] Both the phonetic and simplification plan began simultaneously. At the height of Communist party victory in July 1950, the possibility of continuing with an alphabet system was basically finished when
Mao Zedong brought up
Chinese nationalism. He suggested Latin alphabets were "too foreign". The original plan of 'using alphabets' to improve literacy have since faded.
9 The change from an alphabet reform to a simplified reform is considered a U-turn in Mao's policy.
[10]
Destruction of traditional Chinese culture
Pro-Traditional characters
★
Sinologist Bernhard Karlgren suggested early in 1929 that "the day Chinese discard it (Chinese characters), they will surrender the very foundation of their culture"
It should be noted that traditional Chinese characters was the only set available at the time subject to changes.
★ Some users of traditional characters hold the view that the PRC's character simplification in itself was a destruction of traditional characters, and claim that character simplification,
"Anti-Four Olds" and the Cultural Revolution were all treacherous acts of destruction of traditional Chinese culture. They claim that Mao began character simplification in 1956 and in the mid 1960s launched the Four Olds and the Cultural Revolution
[11] to destroy "Old Chinese Culture", despite the fact that Mao had earlier raised the need to preserve Chinese culture and characters for
Chinese nationalism when core Communist party members advocated to replace characters with an alphabet.
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Neutral observers point out that Karlgren's quote is possibly being misused and quoted out of context. At that time the concept of traditional and simplified characters did not exist, they were simply Chinese characters. From the quote itself it is not clear what "discard it" means. Since the quote is used to support the argument that simplified characters are a "destruction of traditional Chinese culture", if Karlgren was not specifically arguing against character simplification, then this is a misuse of his quote.
★ Neutral observers point out that characters have not been replaced with an alphabet, and that character simplification began in 1956 and had origins going back to the early 20th century before the founding of the PRC, and that character simplification was not a part of the Four Olds nor the Cultural Revolution (both began in the mid 1960s). They also note that whether traditional characters were "destroyed" or not is a matter of opinion, others might say they were "modified".
Disambiguation
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents feel that some traditional characters are too similar in appearance, such as 書 (shū) "book", 晝 (zhòu) "daytime" and 畫 (huà) "drawing": the simplified forms are 书, 昼, and 画, which look much more distinct.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Opponents claim the reverse: simplifications make distinct characters more similar to each other in appearance, giving the "shape recognition" mechanism of the reading part of the brain less unique clues. An example is 無 (wú) "none", simplified into 无, which looks very similar to the existing character 天 (tiān) "sky". Another instance is 設 (shè) "designate" and 沒 (méi) "without", which are quite similar in their simplified forms 设 and 没 and can result in confusion in rapid handwriting.
Speed of writing
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents feel that Simplfied Characters have less strokes, making it easier to write.
[4] Especially for characters with more than 15 strokes are difficult to write.
[13] Many common characters have far too many strokes in traditional form. For example, the common character 邊 (biān, meaning "side") has 18 strokes in traditional form, while its simplified form 边 has only 5 strokes.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Opponents say that the speed advantage of simplified Chinese becomes less relevant in the computer age. With modern computing, entering Chinese characters is now dependent on the convenience of
input method editors or
IMEs. Some IMEs use phoneme-based input, such as
pinyin romanization or
bopomofo, while others are grapheme-based, such as
cangjie and
wubi. These have mainly sidelined the speed issues in handwritten Chinese, as traditional and simplified Chinese often have the same input speed, especially with phoneme-based IMEs. Furthermore, even when it comes to handwriting, a majority of people resort to
semi-cursive script to reduce strokes and save time.
Cursive script is also commonly seen in personal notes as shorthands, which is even more simplified than simplified characters, though in this case readers other than the writer themselves may have a hard time understanding the content.
Phonetics
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents: Chinese characters are most often made up of a pronunciation-indicating part (called the ''phonetic'') and a part that indicates the general
semantic domain (called the ''radical''). During the process of simplification, there are some attempts to bring greater coherence to the system. For example, the shape of 憂 (yōu), meaning "anxious", is not a good indicator of its pronunciation, because there are no clear radical and phonetic components. The simplified version is 忧, a straightforward combination of the "heart" radical to the left (indicating emotion) and the phonetic 尤 (yóu) to the right.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Opponents point out that some simplified forms undermine the phonetics of the original characters, e.g 盤 (pán, plate) has the phonetic component 般 (bān) on top, but the simplified form is 盘, whose upper part is now 舟 (zhōu). 盧 (lú, a
family name) and 爐 (lú, "furnace") shares the same component 盧 in their original forms, but they were inconsistently simplified into 卢 and 炉 respectively, so that 炉 now has the less helpful 户 (hù) as its phonetic. Some characters were radically stripped of all phonetic elements. Perhaps because of its common recurrence in political vocabulary, the second character in zhǔyì, doctrine, was reduced from 義 with the phonetic element 我 (wǒ) to the unrecognizable 义.
Radicals
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents say that the radical system is imperfect in the first place. For example, 笑 (smile, laugh) uses the "bamboo" radical.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Some argue that simplification results in a broken connection between characters, which makes it more difficult for students to expand their vocabulary in terms of perceiving both the meaning and pronunciation of a new character. For example, 鬧 (din, fuss) is now 闹, with a door radical that is not indicative of its meaning.
★ The round of characters simplified by the Communist party was not systematic.
[14] Extensive studies have been conducted among different age groups, especially children, to show that reducing the strokes loses the radical and phonetic relationships between the characters. This actually makes it more difficult for simplified character readers to distinguish the characters, since they now rely heavily on memorization.
14
Merger of characters
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents claim the amount of spoken and written deviation of
Classical Chinese and the modern vernacular is a greater factor, and has already brought about incompatibility with ancient texts. They also claim that the ambiguity brought about by the merger of characters is minimal.
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Simplified Chinese characters frequently include merged characters, which opponents view as baseless and arbitrary: 後 (hòu, "behind") and 后 (hòu, "queen") are both simplified into 后. Likewise, 隻 (zhī, a
measure word) and 只 (zhǐ, "only") are merged into 只; 發 (fā, "happening") and 髮 (fà, "hair") are merged into 发; 穀 (gǔ, "crop") and 谷 (gǔ, "valley") are merged into 谷, and so on. Opponents say that such mergers make
Classical Chinese texts in simplified Chinese characters difficult to understand. They discourage the proliferation of such
homographs.
Aesthetics
Pro-Traditional characters
★
Traditional Chinese Characters are often used as the
de facto standard characters set in
Chinese calligraphy in
Taiwan,
Hong Kong,
Macau and even in the
People's Republic of China, presumably because of its aesthetic value or partly thereof
[15] . This is one of the very few exceptions that the PRC government permits the use of
traditional Chinese Character in mainland China.
Symbolism conflict
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Cultural nationalists proclaimed that simplified characters are the creation of the CCP, therefore it is
socialist or
communist, whereas traditional characters represent
capitalism or
nationalism. The political symbolism makes it difficult for the CCP to restrict traditional characters. Especially in the
Special Administrative Regions, where the temporary solution is seen as the
One country two system.
[16] Hong Kong and
Macau are perceived as capitalist.
[17] Another association made is that simplified characters represent the conservative forces of social state. Whereas traditional characters represent the pre-Revolutionary China, one with
Confucian literature, history and the newest and most modern Chinese life in Hong Kong, Taiwan and overseas.
[18]
Government intimidation
Pro-Traditional characters
★ In mainland China, the communist party have also enforced a law, where a fine of 1000
yuan (about
US $125) can be imposed if traditional characters are used in place of the legally sanctioned simplified characters.
18
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Neutral observers note that the above statement is not actually an argument in support of traditional characters in themselves, but is merely an argument that a legal requirement to use simplified characters is a form of government intimidation.
Late recognition of flawed process
Pro-Traditional characters
★ On May 20, 1980 the Committee of Script Reform publicized via
New China News Agency in the
People's Daily and
Guangming Ribao that they would recommend revision of the
Second-round simplified Chinese character. After lengthy consultation, the SCCSS was setup, and recommended a list of simplified characters. By 1986 the group was terminated, and the characters withdrew, since it failed to win support by the
State Council. The conference stated that no more large scale simplification schemes on the order of the first and second schemes would ever be attempted.
[19] In comparison the first major public withdrawal by the Communist party came 50 years after the first withdrawal by
Kuomintang. In 1934/1935, KMT attempted to simplify just 324 characters in the "First Set of Simplified characters".
[20] It was thought of as a continual step toward
alphabetization.
They used the three principals of (1) adopt existing ones and do not create new ones. (2) select those that circulate relatively widely in society. (3) do not simplify characters that originally did not have too many strokes.
Still, characters by the KMT never reached the public.
20
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Neutral observers note that the above paragraph merely states that there will be no more large scale simplification schemes, and that the KMT's proposed simplification in the 1930s was not not carried out. It does not present evidence to support, or even argue, that there is a "late recognition of flawed process".
Social
Pro-Traditional characters
★ Some teachers in areas where traditional Chinese characters are used often scold students who use simplified characters, even to the extent of calling them "uneducated". This, in addition to other matters, has enforced a prejudice held by some traditional Chinese character users that traditional Chinese is for the educated and cultured, while simplified Chinese is for the illiterate, dumb, even the barbaric. In Taiwan, simplified characters have been regarded as "Communist" and are studiously avoided.
[21]
Pro-Simplified characters
★ Proponents argue that many minds link simplified characters with the idea of
communism and traditional characters with
anticommunism or at least "non-communism". Thus the political implications and affiliations of the writing systems are seen by some as the emotional impetus for the debate. This view interprets most of the back-and-forth debate on the merits of the system, ultimately, as rationalizations.
Shared view
Hindering of communication
The sheer difficulties posed by having two concurrent writing systems hinders communications between
mainland China and other regions. For some who knows both systems well, translating an entire document written using simplified characters to traditional characters, or vice versa, is a trivial but labourious task. However for machine and computer translation, translation from simplified to traditional is not straightforward because there is not an one to one mapping of a simplified character to a traditional character. As a result a computer can be used for the bulk of the translation but will still need final checking by a human.
Unsorted
Others claim that it is not difficult for a person educated in one system to become familiarized with the other system quickly through exposure and experience. For computer automated translation, one simplified character may equate to many traditional characters, but not vice versa. Some knowledge of the context of the word usage is required for correct mapping, but it has been difficult for computers to work with word usage perfectly. As a result, direct computer mapping from simplified to traditional is not trivial and requires sophisticated programming. (This line of reasoning is used both by traditional Chinese advocates opposed to simplification, and simplified Chinese advocates opposed to the continued use of traditional characters.)
References
1. Keller, Andrée Tabouret. [1997] (1997). Vernacular Literacy: A Re-Evaluation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198236352
2. Chinese, , Jerry, Norman, Cambridge University Press, ,
3. Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese, , Bernhard, Karlgren, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1974. Originally published in 1923, ,
4. Gunde, Richard. [2002] (2002). Culture and Customs of China. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313308764
5. CIA factbook China 2007 update of 2002 stats latest as of 8/20/2007
6. CIA factbook China 2007 update of 2003 stats latest as of 8/20/2007
7. Chinanews 08-01-2007 Illiteracy continues to decline
8. Chinanews 07-29-2007 100 mln illiterates learned to read and write in decade
9. Ramsey, Samuel Robert. [1989] (1989). The Languages of China. Princeton University. ISBN 069101468X.
10. Yen, Yuehping. [2005] (2005). Calligraphy and Power in Contemporary Chinese Society. Routledge. ISBN 0415317533
11. Law, Kam-yee. [2003] (2003). The Chinese Cultural Revolution Reconsidered: beyond purge and Holocaust. ISBN 0333738357
12. Gunde, Richard. [2002] (2002). Culture and Customs of China. Greenwood Press. ISBN 0313308764
13. Liu, Jennifer Li-chia. Yan, Margaret Mian [1997] (1997). Interactions I-II: A Cognitive Approach to Beginning Chinese. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253211220.
14. McBride-Chang, Catherine. Chen, Hsuan-Chih. [2003] (2003). Reading development in Chinese Children. Praeger/Greenwood publishing. ISBN 0897898095.
15. ''Advantages and Disadvantages on Traditional Characters vs Simplified Characters'', 2002, published by Government of City of Taipei, Republic of China [1] In point 3, it reads "''Traditional characters is aesthetically pleasing, and therefore it is widely used by people who practice Chinese calligraphy through out 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."''
16. Guo, Yingjie. [2004] (2004). Routledge. Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary China: The Search for National Identity under reform. ISBN 0415322642.
17. Sung, Yun Wing. [1991] (1991). The China-Hong Kong Connection: They Key to China's open-door policy. Cambridge University. ISBN 0521382459.
18. Scollon, Ronald. Scollon, Suzanne B. K. Scollon, Suzie Wong. [2003] (2003). Routledge publishing. ISBN 0415290481
19. Zhou, Minglang. Sun, Hongkai. [2004] (2004). Language Policy In The People's Republic Of China: Theory And Practice Since 1949. ISBN 1402080387
20. Jerry Norman. Anderson, S. R., Bresnan, J. Comrie, B. Ewen, C. Lass, R. [1988] (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521296536
21. Rogers, Henry. [2005] (2005) Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631234640.
See also
★
History of China
★
Timeline of Chinese history
★
Sino-Tibetan languages
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
