ANOTHER VIEW OF COMPLEX AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS

Author(s): C. K. Leong
Source: Journal of Chinese Linguistics , JUNE 1977, Vol. 5, No. 2 (JUNE 1977), pp. 342-
346
Published by: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press on behalf of Project on
Linguistic Analysis

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23753022

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23753022?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of Chinese Linguistics

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOURNAL OF CHINESE LINGUISTICS VOL.5, 1977

ANOTHER VIEh OF COMPLEX AND SIMPLIFIED CHINESE CHARACTERS

C. K. Leong
University of Saskatchewan

In his article 'In Defense of Teaching Simplified

Characters1, Chin-Chuan Cheng deals with the learnabili
1 simplified1 Chinese characters 間体务 as compare
1 complex1 characters • He comes to the defense of
the simplified script, not without some superlatives, and
makes some reference to the teaching of Chinese to American
students.

As Cheng alludes in a number of places to my chapter

(Leong 1973) in Comparative Reading (Downing 1973) and to
Gibson and Levin's (1975) interpretation of my work, I feel
constrained to reiterate and clarify my position. The
purpose of this rejoinder is not to enter into a disputation
of the role of simplified characters in literacy acquisition
in general and reading in particular, but to present another
view of factors facilitating the learning of the traditional
script.

Careful perusal of Comparative Reading makes it cle

that the work focuses on processes and practices of rea
across a number of nations. My chapter should therefore be
read within this context. It was not my intention to
compare the learnability of complex Chinese characters with
simplified ones, as Cheng implies. My data were based on
the traditional Chinese writing system as used in schools in
Hong Kong, and any extrapolation to the simplified script is
not warranted. Thus, throughout my work the term
1 complexity1 or 1 complex logographs1 emphasizes the
structure and combinatory properties of the characters so
important to the learning and teaching of the script. Any
discussion of the language reform movement was outside the
scope of the chapter, hence its brief mention. Cognizant of
the importance of the movement，エ did cautiously state that
its effect on reading would not be easy to assess and that

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DISCUSSIONS PAGE 3^3

notwithstanding linguistic, cultural, and social inertia,

modifications to the traditional script would probably be
desirable.

The ground thus cleared, it is difficult to accept

Cheng's large and unsubstantiated claim that the 'right of
existence of the simplified characters…does not need any
defense1, and that 1 in the past two decades the Chinese have
experienced relative ease of learning and using the
simplified characters (p.315). It should be realized that
the complexity or otherwise of a character does not depend
on the number of strokes alone. Other factors that need to
be taken into account include: type-token ratio in the
general corpus, frequency of occurrence in reading
materials, internal structure and balance of the character,
visual confusability of graphemes with similar
configurations, acoustic confusability of homophones, as
well as attitudinal and motivational factors on the part of
the learner. Liu and Chuang (1970), for example, contrasted
1 simple1 characters 单棒キ with 'compound1 characte
合休字 土11 scaling tnese for meaningfulness• Ai (195
and Leong (1972, 1973) have all emphasized in terms of
pattern recognition the importance of the Gestalt of the
character: its balance, symmetry, and closure. Taking ten
strokes as the cut-off between simple and complex characters
(in the traditional script), Ai found that for those
characters between eleven and fifteen strokes, their ease or
difficulty of perception is largely influenced by their
internal structure or 'goodness1 of form. It should be
noted that in the 2,238 simplified characters in the Master
Table of Simplified Characters promulgated in the People's
Republic of China in May, 1964， there are 263 simplified
characters with fifteen to twenty-five strokes, and 971
simplified characters with more than ten strokes. Thus
there is some indirect evidence that simplification does not
reside in the mere reduction of strokes, much less in
reduction without due regard for linguistic rules.

It is here that Cheng goes against all evidence when he

states 'Chinese characters...are to a large extent arbitrarY
signs1 (p.321, my emphasis). Suffice it to say that the
Chinese、 script is predicated on the bonding of shape ,
sound そ，and meaning 又,and that the morphemic nature of
the symbols helps in their decipherment 雙文主ん•
There is nothing arbitrary about the system. The
grapheme-phoneme-sememe relatedness is brought out in such

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DISCUSSIONS PAGE

characters as ^ 'wh
永稱辟、'butterf
MB 、持 1monkey，
the simplification
where the phoneti
where 義 is the p
1 exclaim'* to 打、i
strokes and the use of a smaller number of characters lead
to many more homophones, and result in some ambiguity.
sentence 沒洵丨c•、千的ん mei you xin gan de re
mean either ’heartless people1 or 'those not prepared to
work hard1, depending on the simplified 十 as referring to
^ or 於• Similarly, the creative and flexible use of
words may be in keeping with the needs of the masses (see
Mao, Fang, and Wang 1974), but there can be confusions. A
case in point is the phrase 一 丘抓浪 yi wu biao zhun
meaning the first five-year plan, where the first four words
are telescoped to — 丘• Parenthetically, Cheng cites the
study by Rozin, Poritsky, and Sotsky (1971), presumably to
show that the success they had in teaching Chinese symbols
to some second grade backward readers was with characters
•not visually complex1. Rozin et al. meant to underline
that the usual phonic approach could be a stumbling block to
poor readers as they found it easier to master logographs.
Aside from methodological weaknesses inherent in this
much-quoted study, both Rozin et al. and Cheng seem to
overlook the visual distinctiveness of the script, which
might account for the poor readers being able to assign
spoken English words to the Chinese characters but not to
written English words. Where Cheng is on surer grounds is
his reference to the relative ease of writing of simplified
characters compared with their counterparts in the
traditional script. Even here, internal structure of
components of a character and the nature of the strokes
(horizontal, vertical, or curved) and their directionality
are just as important.

There is no implication that as a visual language

Chinese characters are at an optimum in providing visual and
cognitive information and do not need changes.
Modifications are needed, but such modifications must be in
keeping with linguistic principles so as to preserve the
richness of the script which has evolved over many
centuries. Any indiscriminate and expedient simplification
of characters such as changing the place name 丨日
%跟。^ ！I吹 to the homophone 00 does more to con
than to help the learner. It should be noted that even

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DISCUSSIONS PAGE 3^5

ardent advocates of language reform expressed cautious views

on simplified characters. Chou (1953:6) stated that
simplification of characters could not solve the inherent
problems of the Chinese language and should not be
overemphasized in language reform. He reiterated (1961:11)
that there was a limit to the advantage of character
simplification, but pointed out that such an urgent task was
not to be overlooked.

Whether language teachers in the U.S. should teach the

traditional or simplified script to their American students
cannot be answered simply. Much depends on the resources
available, the philosophy of the teacher, and the purpose of
the learner. If one aims at becoming a student of
contemporary China, then knowledge of simplified characters,
of putonghua, and, at a later stage, of Latinization will
all be assets. If one is interested in the history and
culture of China, then an approach to the language through
the traditional orthography will open up more avenues. In
his Origins of Western Literacy the classics scholar
Havelock ( 1976) argues that the blossoming of 1 the glory
that was Greece1 is due largely to the invention of an
explicit writing system, namely, the phonetic alphabet.
Before the advent of this, the pre-literate Greek culture
was an oral one with the use of what Havelock calls poetised
speech. He further contrasts the ways in which knowledge is
organized and preserved in an oral tradition and a written
language system. There is probably a parallel in the way
Chinese culture is conditioned by literacy and the medium
and message through which literacy is acquired.

REFERENCES

AI, W. 1955. The Psychology of Reading: The Question of

Chinese Characters (in Chinese). Taiwan: Chung Hua.
CHENG, C.C. 1977. In defense of teaching simplified
characters. JCL 5.2,314-3^1 •
CHOU, Y.K. 1953. A Study of Latinization of the Chinese
Language (sixth edition, in Chinese). Shanghai: Eastern
Publisher.
• 1961. Hanzi Gaige Gailun (in Chinese).
Peking: Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe.
DOWNING, J., ed. 1973. Comparative Reading:
Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading
and Writing. New York: Macmillan.
GIBSON, E.J. and H. LEVIN. 1975. The Psychology of

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 DISCUSSIONS PAGE 3^6

Reading. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

HAVELOCK, E.A. 1976. Origins of Western Literacy.
Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
LEONG, C.K. 1972. A study of written Chinese
vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal 56.4.230-23斗.
• 1973- Hong Kong. In J. Downing, ed.
Comparative Reading: Cross-National Studies of Behavior and
Processes in Reading and Writing. New York: Macmillan.
LIU, I. and C. CHUANG. 1970. Scaling 1,200 Chinese
characters for meaningfulness (in Chinese). Acta
Psychologica Taiwanica 12.33-52.
MAO, C.T., Y.C. FANG, and W. WANG. 1974. Developments
and changes in Chinese words and phrases since the
establishment of the People's Republic of China (in
Chinese). JCL 2.3.249-256•
ROZIN, P., S. P0R1TSKY, and R. SOTSKY. 1971. American
children with reading problems can easily learn to read
English represented by Chinese characters. Science
171.1264-1267.

This content downloaded from

131.111.185.70 on Tue, 21 Jun 2022 09:58:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms