Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049

Strict Standards: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4572: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4574: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4575: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4576: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
Chinese Language Forums - Chinese Etymology Institute • View topic - Is simplified Chinese reduced the illiterate rate in China?

Is simplified Chinese reduced the illiterate rate in China?

Is simplified Chinese reduced the illiterate rate in China?

Postby taiwan » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:38 pm

The following is a discussion from Yahoo!Answer

Is there any solid proof for the claim that simplified Chinese reduced the illiterate rate in China?

The followings are three facts?


Fact 1 --- the illiterate rate in 1950s in China was 85%, and it is about 15% now (2011).
With the fact 1, many (scholars or Chinese government) claim that the simplified Chinese character system was the key cause for the reduction of illiterate rate in China.

Fact 2 --- the percentage of population attended school in 1950s in China was less than 15%, and it is over 90% today (2011).

With the fact 2, the fact 1 is the direct result of fact 2. The reduction of illiterate rate is wholly caused by the increased school attending rate, and it has nothing to do with the simplified Chinese character system.

Fact 3 --- Taiwan uses traditional system and has lower illiterate rate than China now (2011).



Answers:
1. from Sanghee Elf
I personally haven't seen any proof. The intent of using simplified was to increase literacy, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The best thing to combat illiteracy is to educate people, I don't think whether or not the characters are slightly easier makes a difference because educated people will be able to learn either system.


2. from bryan_q
Fact is a lot of people still can't learn Chinese! Simplified Chinese is no use, except for using it to take notes.

Fact 1 --- the illiterate rate in 1950s in China was 85%, and it is about 15% now (2011).
With the fact 1, many (scholars or Chinese government) claim that the simplified Chinese character system was the key cause for the reduction of illiterate rate in China.
That's statistic of 15% is a total lie. Ask people what they really know? Most of them can't even remember how to write a simple character, so therefore used a similar character with the same pronunciation as a substitute.

Fact 2 --- the percentage of population attended school in 1950s in China was less than 15%, and it is over 90% today (2011).

Yes, many people attended schools, even college and possibly even universities, but how much do they really understand? Most vocabulary goes back to minority language, or slang usages and not standard usage at all. That's why there's two ways for most computer terms in Chinese and at least three ways of writing "bicycle", depending on if you're in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or China. Ask people in China how to say "computer". They'll tell you, it's 计算机, which people in Hong Kong & Taiwan use to mean "calculator". People in Hong Kong and Taiwan use 電腦 for "computer" instead. People in China even adopted non-Mandarin terms, making it sound weird and very troublesome because the characters used are of a different dialect. 靚, mostly used in Cantonese, sometimes used in Taiwanese, and is now written as 靓, as the simplified form of 靚, where the Cantonese meaning of "beautiful" is used differently. 賣單, Cantonese, for "check please", used at Chinese restaurant as a sign to get the bill, is now used in China, and simplified as "卖单". BUT, in Mandarin, the word 卖, meaning to sell, sounds exactly the opposite in the original Cantonese, meaning "to buy", so that's why I always oppose the Mainlander's usage of it!

With the fact 2, the fact 1 is the direct result of fact 2. The reduction of illiterate rate is wholly caused by the increased school attending rate, and it has nothing to do with the simplified Chinese character system.
It's not a fact. It's a lie.

Fact 3 --- Taiwan uses traditional system and has lower illiterate rate than China now (2011).
Yes they are. Because with Traditional Chinese writing you can trace the composition of the character back to it's original or at least up until the Middle Chinese period [between the Sui and the Ming periods: between the years 581-1368 CE] to see the original meaning. Example: 软, can't be trace further with Simplified characters. But with Traditional Chinese you can, somewhat. 软, derived from 軟, was a variant form of 輭. 輭 = 車[vehicle; coach, cart]+而[originally, the picture of a man's beard: a man's beard in ancient China was very long: therefore the meaning of long could be used for 而]+大[a person lying flat on the ground, with arms and legs spread out: relaxing. So, 大, not just mean "big; great", but also "relaxed person"]. 輭 , then means "a vehicle or coach for which a person can relax in, with enough room inside for a lot of things".


What is your answer on this?
taiwan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:45 pm

delete this

Postby Wehigehex » Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:08 pm

I finded answers in google
hello peoples!
Wehigehex
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Gibraltar

Re: delete this

Postby taiwan » Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:25 pm

Wehigehex wrote:I finded answers in google



Please provide the link to that page.
taiwan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: delete this

Postby Calista » Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:27 am

Wehigehex wrote:delete this


Delete what?
There is the First Amendment in America.
Wehigehex, your post can be deleted by yourself.

Wehigehex wrote:I finded answers in google


Show me.
Calista
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Is simplified Chinese reduced the illiterate rate in Chi

Postby votusa » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:44 pm

taiwan wrote:

Answers:
1. from Sanghee Elf
... I don't think whether or not the characters are slightly easier makes a difference because educated people will be able to learn either system.


Agree, 100%.

taiwan wrote:2. from bryan_q

Fact is a lot of people still can't learn Chinese! Simplified Chinese is no use, except for using it to take notes.

Ask people what they really know? Most of them can't even remember how to write a simple character, so therefore used a similar character with the same pronunciation as a substitute.


Very interesting. If this is so, then the claim that simplified system reduced illiteracy in China is bogus.
votusa
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:00 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron