Chinese, being one of the most intriguing languages in the world, with its many different dialects and tones, has intrigued many linguists in the diversity and complexity of the language. However, China has been split due to the lack of textual unity, where parts of the country practice Simplified Chinese and the remainder sticks to the old methods of Traditional Chinese. The dispute of which method is more appropriate or beneficial to the Chinese community has continued to be unresolved where linguists and psychologists have attempted to analyze if one method is psychologically better than another.
The main question that is continuously brought up is: is Simplified Chinese significantly or even remotely more beneficial socially, psychologically, or even economically? Does one method trump another to the point where China should declare one over the other as the official print of the country?
History of Chinese Dialects
When walking around China, unfamiliar with the language spoken, most of the citizens sound as if speaking the same language. However, to a person who is accustomed to the languages, he or she will be able to identify native speakers versus foreigners or more importantly, differences between the multitudes of dialects being spoken across China. Though very similar, each dialect has significant differences in slang, vocabulary, and pronunciation. Many regions neighboring each other carry tonal similarities but still differ in slang or accent.
Many different regions in China carry a mix between the three biggest known dialects: Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese. Each originating in a separate region of China and Taiwan, the three dialects have influenced the entirety of China over the years. As of currently, fourteen established subgroups of the Chinese dialects are identified. However, the identification between a language and a dialect among the multitude of spoken Chinese has been controversial. The question of how linguistically different these must be in order to count as a language rather than a dialect is not distinguished particularly clearly. One method of determining whether such a difference should be deemed a language over a dialect is through a socio-economic viewpoint: the stronger the group of speakers, the more likely the designation of being a language. A clear example of this in China is Mandarin being identified as a language, and not only that, but the official language of all of China. Mandarin carries the most similarities among the fourteen different dialects and has over the years, been adopted by almost every part of China. Even though each region has its own dialect, most of its citizens are also able to speak or translate into Mandarin. This reflects just how potent Mandarin has become and how powerful of a language it is, since it has been able to permeate into almost every region of China.
Another definition of a dialect versus a language is the idea that many of the dialects in China share a common similarity: the same written language. Even though many of the dialects are spoken very differently, they all use the same common written language. Mandarin was chosen to be the “Chinese language” because grammatically, it is the closest to the written language whereas all the other Chinese linguistics are viewed as dialects that are variations of Mandarin.
The argument over whether different dialects should count as languages instead has been a controversy over the years that still remains unsolved. Some linguists claim that some of the dialects in China are so significantly different tonally from Mandarin that they are different enough to be considered its own full-fledged language. In addition, comparing Spanish to Italian or Portuguese makes the argument for different dialects of Chinese to be full languages instead has made the argument stronger.
Cantonese Versus Mandarin
Yue Chinese, also known as Cantonese, is one of the most significantly different dialects to Mandarin. Tonally, it sounds almost unrecognizably different from Mandarin, with only those who are familiar with Mandarin being able to distinguish certain similar words but missing on the Cantonese slang. Because Cantonese is mutually unintelligible and has its own written language, some linguists have deemed Cantonese different enough to be distinguished as its own language. In addition, the argument that Cantonese should be its own language is further strengthened with the idea that even though it shares the same common written language as Mandarin, it also uses slang or verbal vocabulary that cannot be translated on paper in PuTongHua (Mandarin). Cantonese vocabulary cannot always be easily translated directly into Mandarin nor put down on paper and with these, Cantonese can be identified as different enough from Mandarin to be considered a different language. Cantonese, mainly spoken in Southern China such as Guangdong and Hong Kong, however is still considered a dialect as it is spoken in different parts of China, where the national language is deemed Mandarin, and carries similar ethnic, political and cultural similarities to Mandarin speakers.
Mandarin and Cantonese are the two most well-known Chinese dialects and are most identified with when Chinese speakers are asked what dialect they speak. Many Cantonese speakers are biased as well and consider Cantonese to be a language of its own, even though it is not internationally recognized as one. However, Mandarin and Cantonese speakers have identified them enough with their language that they consider themselves two different ethnic groups within China.
When asking Cantonese speakers about their culture in comparison to the culture of Mandarin speakers, Cantonese speakers often stereotype themselves as a different ethnic group, stating that they “have a better sense of fashion because they were ruled by the English, are much more mannered, and just in general, a more sophisticated and developed society.” When Cantonese speakers are asked their opinions of the Mandarin speakers and regions (mainly referring to Shanghai, Beijing and other larger middle China regions), they scoff and degrade Mandarin speakers as “living in underdeveloped and trashy cities with no understanding of how to be polite or quiet.”
On the other hand, Mandarin speakers do not speak lightly of Cantonese regions either, distinguishing the language as “harsh and angry” and Cantonese people as “gross men and women who spit everywhere they go.” The seemingly distinguished cultures between the Mandarin regions and the Cantonese regions have brought about a schism between the two worlds. However, united through the Chinese cultures and Cantonese speakers ability to speak Mandarin, the two cultures live side by side peacefully.
Traditional Versus Simplified Chinese
The written language of Chinese is common to every region of China, including Taiwan (a region that does not currently recognize itself as affiliated with China). The traditional Chinese written language is also known as the “complex” form of Chinese, with the original written form when Chinese was originally first formed as a language. It carries the sophisticated idea that each character reflects the form of the object it is referring to and each word can be interpreted as carrying forms within the character that identify it (for example, the character wood is in word tree or the words that form the phrase forest). However, over the recent years, Simplified Chinese has been more commonly used over China for its simplicity and ability to be taught more easily than Traditional Chinese. Simplified Chinese is a set of standard set of contemporary Chinese characters that are as the name describes simplified in order to increase literacy in China. It is prominent in Mainland China and can be seen on street signs or in books in large mainland cities. However, in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and smaller mainland cities, Traditional Chinese is still the common written language seen in public and taught in schools. In addition, overseas Chinese students are usually still taught Traditional Chinese, sometimes adopting simplified Chinese to allow students to be able to read both.
The controversy of which set of Chinese character set should be used nationally has caused much discussion over the years. Those loyal to the use of Traditional Chinese have made the arguments that traditional characters carry the significance of the words such as using heart [心] in the word love [愛] which would be lost when using the simplified Chinese character which is missing 心in its written form of the word love, 爱. The use of the word heart in the word love represents the idea that to love someone means to carry affection from the heart and by changing this in the simplified character, this meaning or interpretation of the word is then lost. In addition, pro-traditional believers think that back when simplified Chinese was being formed, those in power chose to degrade or destroy traditional characters for particular words in order to change/degrade the meaning or significance of the word. This modernization is what they believed an act of Chinese communism government and its negative influence.
However, on the other hand, those in favor of the use of Simplified Chinese argue that simplified is much easier to learn as it takes away the large amounts of strokes that Traditional characters require to learn and memorize. In addition, it takes archaic words that are similar to much more common words and replaces them so that the more popular characters can be used more often and those archaic ones will exist but in a less common form.
As history has shown, literacy rates have steadily increased since Simplified Chinese has been implemented but not necessarily due to merely the use of simplified characters.
Sociological Effects of Traditional and Simplified
Bernhard Karlgren stated that “the day Chinese discard [Chinese characters], they will surrender the very foundation of their culture.” The claim that Chinese culture is being destroyed because its very foundation is being altered has been suggested as sociologists watch the influence of Simplified Chinese as it spread through Mainland China. In addition, because of the removal of significant parts of the characters in Simplified characters, those reading simplified are unable to understand the origination of the character or how it came to be the way it is now. Losing this means losing the understand of the Chinese written language and those in favor of Traditional Chinese are afraid that the meaning of Chinese characters will be lost if China is not careful in how it values Chinese culture and the memory of Chinese art and its reflection in the written language.
The controversy between Simplified and Traditional Chinese has left China divided, where parts of the country still practice Traditional Chinese and more modernized cities display and write in Simplified Chinese. This difference throughout the country has disunited the country in means of literacy, however, those who read traditional are more likely to be able to read simplified. The disunity has created problems throughout China in which groups of Chinese have been segregated by the language spoken and the written language.
Psychological Effects of Traditional and Simplified
Gang Peng, James Minett, and William Wang did a study on the psychological effects of learning Traditional and Simplified Chinese in 2009. The three scientists studied how learning Traditional or Simplified affected the speed to which a Chinese speaker would react to visual stimulation and the possible brain potentials and differences between the two different types of readers. The objective of the study was to attempt to figure out if there was any significant difference in learning Simplified or Traditional Chinese.
The study compared PuTongHua (Mandarin) speakers with Hong Kong Cantonese speakers. The study was done at the Chinese University in Hong Kong with mainland Chinese speakers and native Hong Kong citizens. The study was done electronically, where a subject was placed before a computer and shown a picture. This picture consisted of either a character or a non-character (that being a copy of the character but missing a stroke). When viewing the picture, the subject must determine whether this picture exists as a character or not and respond as correctly and as quickly as possible.
By doing this study, Peng, Minett, and Wang were able to look at which group of students were better able to notice the difference between a real character and a false pretense of one. The study revealed that the students who could read Simplified Chinese responded faster at noticing characters and non-characters. This was explained by the idea that because there are generally less strokes in the simplified characters than in traditional, students who read simplified had to be able to notice difference in strokes in a smaller pool of characters and amount of strokes. It appeared that Simplified Chinese readers noticed minute details at a faster rate than those who read Traditional Chinese.
The study looks at graphic priming and the ability to notice and recognize different significant images. The study concluded that those with better graphic priming skills would have a greater ease in processing the images placed in front of them and placing them into the correct category.
Other psychologists also discussed the difference between native Chinese speakers and non-Chinese readers. Where non-Chinese readers saw images holistically, native Chinese speakers had a natural left-side bias, which they believe reveals a “greater visual expertise”. Peng, Minett, and Wang make a counterargument that Traditional readers may differentiate a character based on a subset of images within a character, thus making it more difficult for them to notice differences just purely by graphics.
Another study done by Flora Chung and Man-tak Leung, studying elementary school students who studied either simplified or traditional Chinese, reveals that there is a “greater awareness of phonological awareness and consistency” among advanced readers. The study finds that the nature of the script the children learn affects their metalinguistic awareness, the ability to sort out rules and apply them.
The orthographic depth hypothesis proposes that the more orthographically depth the language, the harder it is to learn. Languages that are orthographically shallow (eg. Italian and Spanish) have similarities between the sound and the written print, therefore making it easier to convert through sound. Because of this, those learning the language are more likely to be more easily taught and remembered. Because Chinese is an orthographically deep language, reading acquisition is more difficult.
In Chung and Leung’s study, two sets of students are taught either Simplified or Traditional Chinese. Since radicals play a large part in the meaning of a word, Traditional Chinese seems to be based more on interpretation of the character rather than analyzing it from a graphic point of view. The study found that those who learned Traditional Chinese were able to learn a larger number of characters due to many words sharing the same radicals. The conclusion of the study analyzed the use of hemispheres of brains, where the right hemisphere was more adept at recognizing single Chinese characters and the left hemisphere was better able to process more complex characters.
By looking at the amount of characters a student can learn or the speed at which he or she can recognize a character or non-character varies according to whether he or she is learning Simplified or Traditional Chinese. Each has its appeals, whether it be Traditional Chinese speaker’s ability to differentiate parts of a character into separate subgroups or the Simplified Chinese speaker’s skill at recognize small difference among two seemingly identical characters.
Each method brings about a different mental advantage or skill that is trained by learning Simplified or Traditional Chinese. It is unsure if one or the other benefits in the long run better than the other but it is known for sure that each has its unique advantages and disadvantages that cause a Chinese reader to be able to differentiate pictorial characters for different aspects of the character.
Positive and Negatives of These Studies
The psychological interpretations of looking at characters versus non-characters reveals how Chinese readers interpret the images they see before them and revealed that Simplified readers look more at images while Traditional readers analyze the characters more carefully, looking at groups within the character, attempting to look at hints given by subsets.
Even though Simplified Chinese provides greater literacy and a better ability to recognize slight differences in strokes, Simplified Chinese loses the innate nature of the Chinese characters, where the characters reflect the nature of the object or phrase that it is portraying. Therefore, my conclusion would be that even though Simplified Chinese increases literacy and allows for a larger population to be able to learn the language, Simplified Chinese loses the main characteristic that identifies the Chinese language as different from other languages: the pictorial representation of a word’s meaning. Although Traditional may start out difficult, it becomes more straight forward as a student advances in levels, recognizing different radicals and other clues that lead to the meaning or phonetics of a character.
However, whether one learns Simplified or Traditional Chinese, one will be learning a language based off pictorial representations of an object or idea. The amazing factor of learning Chinese is that the brain is trained to recognize different aspects of a character, whether it be if a stroke was removed from a character or identifying a radical sitting within a character. Chinese, being one of the most difficult Asian languages to learn, trains to listen to tonal differences but also to recognize graphic differences that are not as effective in other languages.
No concrete evidence as of the current day proves that Simplified or Traditional Chinese is better than the other and therefore, the argument continues over which should be used as the national print of China. Most of Mainland China has adopted Simplified Chinese as its common print but other cities such as Hong Kong and Taiwan continue to follow the old methods, using Traditional Chinese. Because no evidence so far has proved that either method is much more advantageous than another, psychologists still continue to analyze the psychological effects of learning one method over the other.
In the future, studies will hopefully be done to further analyze the psychological effects of studying Chinese (and in particular the difference between Simplified and Traditional print) to gain a better understanding to the complexity of Chinese and whether a difficult language such as Chinese has benefits in the long run. In the future, hopefully more studies will be done to have a stronger sense of just how Chinese or pictorial languages in general affect the way a speaker or reader thinks or views languages. Does he or she see words as a group of letters put together or subset of words combined together to make a larger meaning. In addition, how do those who do not study pictorially compare to Chinese or other pictorial languages? Is there a faster reaction when viewing pictures or looking for differences in not characters but perhaps, a painting?
Cites
"Chinese Languages and Dialects." Glossika. Web. 09 June 2010.
Chung, Flora, and Man-tak Leung. "Data Analysis of Chinese Characters in Primary School Corpora of Hong Kong and Mainland China: Preliminary Theoretical Interpretations."Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 22 (2008): 379-89. Print.
"EastSouthWestNorth: Traditional versus Simplified Chinese Characteri." Traditional versus Simplified Chinese Characters. EastSouthWestNorth. Web. 09 June 2010.
Na, Jinkyung, Michael Varnum, Shinobu Kitayama, Richard Gonzalez, and Richard Nisbett. "Cultural Differences Are Not Always Reducible to Individual Differences." Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States107 107.14 (2010): 6192-197. Print.
Peng, Gang, James Minett, and William Wang. "Cultural Background Influences the Liminal Perception of Chinese Characters: An ERP Study." Journal of Neurolinguistics 23.4 (2010): 416-26. Print.
