If the Chinese people wish to adapt themselves to the ways of this modern world, simplification of the Chinese written language is a practical necessity. It is also quite an effective means of preserving the best part of the cultural traditions of China. The "Literary Revolution," a movement started in 1918 to adopt pei hua or the spoken language as a recognized style of literary work and official writing, is without doubt a great advance along the path of linguistic simplification, but this measure of simplification, without reforming the complicated form of Chinese calligraphy at the same time, left the work half done.
The demand for a more thorough simplification of the Chinese characters has been raised virtually by all common people. With the exception of a few self-styled defenders of faith in whatever cultural relics that may be called “classical", the movement for the simplification of written Chinese has the support of the people.
However, the tendency to use simplified Chinese characters is almost irresistible. A glance at official documents, news copy of reporters and correspondence exchanged between individuals will convince one of this fact. Wherever it is necessary, for those the nature of whose occupation compels them to conserve time in communicating with one another, the simplified form of writing has been effected, almost involuntarily.
The passage of time and the demand resulting from the vast changes in the economic and social order of Chinese society conspire to render some simplified written means of communication necessary to the general public. This need of the people grows daily in response to the necessity of expediting the accomplishment of their daily work.
Chinese educators, scientists and cultural workers who are faced with immense quantities of written communications express a decided preference for a set of simplified characters over the complexities of orthodox calligraphy.
Thus, the crying need of the time called forth the realization that the simplification of Chinese written characters is wanted by the people. When I speak of the people, I refer to the great masses and not the privileged few. Those who advocate a simplified Chinese written language are able to plead their cause in the light of the historical development of that language. There are ample reasons to justify the eventual national acceptance of a simplified system of word structure.
The movement for simplification is dictated by the law of cultural evolution. No one is in a position to initiate the movement for the satisfaction of any individual idiosyncrasy.
Unfortunately, my attempts in the past to promote the adoption of a system of simplified Chinese characters has met with bitter criticism from many persons who totally disregarded the evolutionary law governing the development of all languages. I find myself called upon to clear up the misty atmosphere which produced such criticism. I request permission to enumerate my reasons for advocating the movement for the simplification of Chinese characters, to set forth my justifications to describe the effective methods by which the movement may be carried on.
The simplified form of Chinese characters, by virtue of its being easy to learn, will help to strengthen the national unity, both racially and culturally, of the Chinese people. Within the extensive territory and with so teeming a population, China needs a more facile means of transmitting thought for her citizens. Fortunately, in spite of the existence of a number of dialects and even some minority languages in China, there is a common instrument of exchanging ideas among the people in the form of the written language which has served for several thousand years as their lingua franca. But the components of this written language, the characters, are too complicated and consequently rather difficult to learn.
Throughout my extensive travels in China and abroad, the voice of the Chinese people has always been heard to urge the necessity for the simplification of the form of Chinese characters.
It has been frequently pointed out that, in these modern days, education in China should not be limited to a few leasurely scholars who have the time to dilly-dally with their words. Modern society demands that people be educated and that they be able to communicate with one another simply, clearly and quickly in both the spoken and written forms.
With the varied demands upon the time and energy of the modern Chinese scholars in their competition with scholars of other nations, it is no longer possible for them to devote so much time and energy required to acquire competence and skill in the orthodox forms of the written Chinese language.
The time spent in acquiring the necessary competence in the Chinese written language robs the average student of both time and energy to compete with world scholarship in different fields of learning. If the Chinese characters be kept in their fully orthodox style, there is a great danger that it will fall out of use simply for lack of popularity when the day is reached in which both students and teachers may choose an entirely different medium of thoughttransmission.
The use of language is universal. It is not a diversion or privilege of just a small group of individuals. Education is also rapidly becoming an essential part of civic rights and the government must provide this education for the people in the most practical way. To facilitate the education of the people under the demands of the present stage of, social evolution, the adoption or development of a language which is easy both to read and write is essential.
Admittedly, conservative psychology does play, among some people, a part in resisting change. But the demand of better education by the masses, forming a part of the pressure of social evolution, plus their natural tendency to progress along the path of least resistance, will lead to less opposition to the growing popularity of the easier method of written communication. The evolution of language, like social evolution in general, cannot be held back.
In fact, the Chinese language has been changing in both the spoken and written forms since it was first conceived. While there have been certain obstacles in the path to complete simplicity of the Chinese written language, the various schools of chirography throughout the long history of China have recorded a constant tendency for scholars to adopt new and simplified forms of writing.
For instance, the Chinese characters inscribed upon oracle bones during Yin Dynasty differed both in style and form from the inscriptions found on bronze works of Chou Dynasty. With the exception of some new words in the evergrowing written vocabulary of the Chinese language, there was a marked tendency in the style of writing towards simplification.
Up to the time of the Annals of Spring and Autumn, two completely different forms of writing from those found in the Yin and Chou dynasties had come into popular use. These are recorded in Chinese history as the "Westernland" and the "Easternland" forms of writing.
These were later modified by Li Sze, premier under Emperor Shih Huang of Chin Dynasty when China became a unified empire. Under his modifications, calligraphers and chirographers developed the "Western land graphic form" of writing into what has become known as the "ornamental form" of writing, while Cheng Miao initiated the square form of writing. Of the two, the former or "ornamental form" was the more complicated and was designed for the special use of those far advanced in the art and skill demanded for formal writing. The latter, a simplified and stylized version of previous forms in use in China, was designed to meet the demand for a simplified, clear-cut written form of the language. The former was embraced by the artists and scholars while the latter was taken up by the military, the civil servants, the merchants and the more practicalminded of the nation's educators.
History records that it was the former which, after a short period of popularity, went completely out of use, while the latter continued to be used until it was modified and eventually supplanted by a still more simplified form of writing.About 200 years after these forms were devised, a new simplified form of writing called the "Chang Tsao", came into fashion. This style of writing which still kept each character as a separate entity, was gradually developed into a loosely flowing form with many of the characters connected. It is the latter style which, known as "Tsao Shu", has survived to the present day as the most popular form of writing in personal correspondence.
The square style of writing, initiated by Cheng Miao, passed into limbo by the close of Han Dynasty in favor of the orthodox style, a form which is more generally practiced by Chinese chirographers today. Thus, in the interest of simplicity and to meet the needs of a convenient form of written language, the three styles which proved most facile have survived the passage of time, while those forms which were not conducive to progress and the trend towards simplicity were rejected and could not survive. The orthodox, running and correspondence styles of chirography with certain modifications toward further simplicity were able to withstand the test of time and are in wide use throughout China today.
Evolution of Chinese Characters (File photo)
To illustrate graphically the evolutionary development of the Chinese written language, different styles of writing which were designee and in use in the various periods are given at left:
A brief glance at the different style or writing will quickly show the constant changes which time and the people's demand for simplicity have wrought in the written characters.
From the inception of Ching Dynasty in the middle of the 17th Century, Chinese culture has undergone many changes while social ideas, customs and order, responding to the increased stimuli of western ideas and cultural influences, also went through fundamental changes. Modern transportation facilities were responsible for bringing China into dose contact with not only her neighbors bordering on the north-west but with the foreign lands beyond the seas.
In the great changes which have been wrought in culture and social customs, the written language failed to keep pace with the developments of the times. In the face of the latest concepts in science, arts, cultural achievements and international society, it is one of China's sins of omission in the discharge of her obligations to her people that hidebound supporters of old traditions which have outlived their usefulness have been able to obstruct the advance of concomittant changes in the written Chinese language.
Failure to adapt ourselves to the circumstances demanded by the new world society through the introduction of a more simplified form of the Chinese written language will enhance the danger of our failure to survive culturally in the modern world. By obstructing the natural process of evolution of the written language upon the pretext of the preservation of the ancient cutural riches of China, those responsible for maintaining the present forms and styles would find, in the pages of history yet to be written, that they were culpably contributing to the stagflation of present day and future Chinese civilization.
It is imperative then, to introduce a simplified language which will facilitate the acquisition of all branches of modern knowledge of the arts anti sciences. The best methods of simplifying the Chinese written words are:
(1) To put the simplified words of ancient time to use. There are many simplified words in ancient styles of writing such as the oracle bone inscriptions of Yin Dynasty, the carvings on bronze utensils of Yin and Chou dynasties which are not in use at the present time. These can be put to work easily and profitably.
For example, the Chinese character Li (礼) appearing on the carvings on bronzes of Yin and Chou dynasties stands for the same concept as the character Li (禮) which is now in use. It certainly should not be considered disrespectful to Chinese tradition if we revive the use of such simplified characters and discard the more complicated ones in use today.
(2) To adopt simplified words appearing in, the inscriptions on monuments of the Han and Wei dynasties. These have been considered one of the most valuable items of our cultural heritage. As it would certainly follow the orthodox line of writing, it should cause no cataclysmic disaster, if they are to be adopted once again and put to work in our modern language.
(3) To select simplified words from books printed by the wood-block method during the Sung and Yuan dynasties. The books printed by this method contain many simplified characters which would be material improvements over those in the orthodox form in use today. It was these books which helped to mark a new era in the history of Chinese culture. Later the printing press made the expansion of the Chinese printed word possible, making it accessible to great numbers of people. These simplified words in particular may be readily adapted to modern use, because great numbers of people are familiar with their form and their meaning.
(4) To adopt simplified words now being used in official documents. To expedite the transmission of government regulations, documents and communications, many characters in official documents are in radically simplified forms. It may be assumed that their use by government offices is tacit admission that they have found orthodox characters too unwieldy and time-consuming. Inasmuch as they are currently in use, there can be no valid objection to having their use given general recognition by the writing public.
(5) To select certain simplified words appearing in official documents of military organizations. At no other time is the value of time so apparent in determining the success or failure of operations as in time of war. The military forces are vitally aware of the necessity of speedy communications and maximum facility in writing messages. Therefore they have devised a great number of simplifications which constantly appear in their written communications, manuals and other documents. If the military authorities have found the simplified use of such words convenient, time saving and satisfactory, there is no reason to suppose that the general populace would not enjoy the same facilities.
(6) To adopt simplified words in popular use. Disregarding word forms which are considered formal, and proper, busy modern people have attempted to find their own solution to the clumsy and unwieldy written language. Busy in their daily pursuits, they have simplified certain words to facilitate their everyday records and correspondence. Many new words have been coined in the form of simplified characters which appear in wide use in business documents, letters and private correspondence.
The increasing use of such word forms is indicative of the pressing need for word simplification. The words so coined by the people have come into such popular use that nearly everyone is familiar with their form and use. There can be seen no readily apparent reason why these words should not be formally adopted and put into the everyday language of all people and taught in schools.
(7) To simplify the radicals or one component part of the characters. Chinese words may be grouped together under their respective radicals. In the present-day system of writing, some radicals are quite difficult to write. It would save much time in writing if the radicals were simplified after the model of some of the component parts of ancient styles of writing.
Some persons have assumed that, after simplification, the ability of the general public to understand and read the classics will be impaired. They are obsessed with the fear that Chinese culture may suffer thereby and eventually be lost to civilization and Chinese will become a dead language. The assumption is definitely without basis in fact and the fear is misplaced.
Many ancient styles of writing for certain classics are almost completely obsolete now, and the only reason that those classics can be read by so many people today is that they have been translated into the modern style script. A script which even Confucius would never have been able to read had he descended from the heaven. Then why is further simplification of this script more sacrilegious?
It is not the style of writing which will preserve Chinese culture, but the actual lives of the people-their ability to survive the present ideological struggles which face the world without surrendering themselves to false ideological and moral concepts. Chinese culture has suffered greater loss by Communist maltreatment and disfiguration than from any other cause. The style of writing has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the ideas, but the secret lies in putting the thoughts of the classics into a form which is widely and readily accessible and acceptable to the people.
It is quite understandable that there will always be some of our scholars who are interested in studying classics published in forms of Chinese written language long since dead. For the classical research work, their efforts are not wasted, but it should not be necessary to require all students to learn an ancient language the acquisition of which would consume so much of their valuable time which they could have devoted to the pursuit of knowledge in other fields.
Under the pressure of our daily life in this modern world, it is almost criminal to think that the student who plans to enter business or industry, while preparing himself for a technical education in his chosen work, should be robbed of intellectual energy which could be better employed in his desired pursuits, by having to study the highly complex language form in use today. Simplification of the written language is absolutely necessary to provide him with the additional time with which he may meet the ever-increasing competition from international participants in the same fields who arrive at their technical education through the medium of a much simpler language.
There are those who would raise the question whether, after simplification, there would not be two languages in existence at the same time. I cannot believe that there is any such likelihood. There will not be two languages in existence at the same time in the future, any more than there are at present, as the simplification system I am suggesting is based upon the selection and standardization of those simpler forms of radicals and characters which are in current usage and which are by no means alien to the visual habits of the common people.
Today, military official and some professional circles have different sets of simplified forms of Chinese characters for their own use. These forms of written Chinese unfortunately have not been simplified in accordance with guiding principles other than their immediate need. Their coinage has been either accidental or haphazard. Thus the work of systematization and standardization is urgently needed.
Some schools of critics of language simplification base their attacks on aesthetic grounds, saying that simplified characters are not as beautiful as orthodox ones in form. I strongly disagree with this school of opinion because it can hardly find any justification in any theory of aesthetics. Complexity does not necessarily mean beauty. "Art is selection, simplicity has its own beauty.”
Chinese painting bears this out. Wang Meng (王蒙), famed Chinese scholar and artist in Yuan Dynasty, specialized in drawing mountain peaks in the finest details, while another in the same field and the same period, Ni Yun-lin (倪雲林), specialized in drawing landscapes with a few strokes. To ordinary people, the aesthetic values should be put on different levels, but to the art critics, their works are equally beautiful and praise-worthy. Characters, like pictures, have the same artistic value, whether outlined in the finest detail or skillfully sketched with bold lines indicating their essential elements.
The history of Chinese calligraphy stands for the same aesthetic principle. For instance, the free hand writing style of famed calligraphers Chang Chih (張芝) and So Ching (索靖), known as "Chang Tsao", is widely admired for their classic beauty. But is "Chang Tsao" not a simplified form? Thus we see that simplicity and complexity are themselves not proper yardsticks to measure the value of either painting or handwriting.
Still another group of dissidents who question the value of linguistic simplification consists of those who say that the simplification of Chinese characters is against "the law of evolution," as they understand it. They say that the law of evolution in writing is for it to evolve from the simple to the complex. This appears to me to be a strange theory, for evolution merely means change and adaptation. Nature would retain only those things which are necessary and for which she has a use. At one time man had a tail which finally disappeared.
It is due to nature's process of simplification through the elimination of an unnecessary appendage to the human body. This is sufficient to reject the false idea that evolution is necessarily a process developing from the simple to the complex. Still other critics of simplification of the Chinese written language bemoan the fact that we are too busy today to simplify our language and that we must wait until we return to the main land. This idea must be carefully considered.
To postpone a needed reform in language because of a national crisis is a way of evading the question. Reforms should never be postponed until the crisis is over. Instead, any means that can help the nation to cope with its present crisis should be immediately adopted. This movement, therefore, must be begun now, kept in motion and in complete working order when we return to the mainland so that we have in our possession an effective educational weapon to carry on our war of ideas.
The "wait until we get there" line of thinking is a fallacy. For example, we may consider the matter of reform in landownership, the land-to-the-tiller program. It is without doubt a concern of the entire nation, but we have enforced it in Taiwan. Would the proponents of such thinking suggest that we should have waited until we have effected the recovery of the mainland before enforcing our land reform policy here.
The most important thing is to recognize that any task must be performed if it's beneficial and necessary to the nation as a whole. If we wait until we return to the mainland we shall find ourselves burdened with many other tasks, both big and small, with no time left to initiate this major reform until it should be much too late.
To coin words is not the privilege of the ancient people only, which seems to be the belief of some conservatives. I do not grant that the ancient people-the wise men who formulated the Chinese language in its cultural entity, much as we must admire them and honor them-surpassed in intelligence the people of present-day China. The reason they coined words, modified and changed previous. words and established new systems for a clearer means of communication was because first, they needed the words or modifications and secondly, they had the courage and intelligence to do so.
I agree that we should follow in the footsteps of our forefathers, but not in their goosesteps, We should emulate their wisdom and determination but we must not accept wholly what tools of communication they handed down to us. With this decision, we may safely assure ourselves that we are perpetuating the proud heritage which they have left us. I have previously pointed out that some common people have coined or simplified new words on their own initiative. These words, in most cases, are sound both in form and in theory.
For example, the word "chung"(种) means to sow. This word in its original form was composed of the character "Chung" (重) meaning heavy and "ho" (禾) meaning crop. This word was difficult to write and, in agricultural China, the word appears very often. The word in its modified and simplified form appearing in the students' dictionary uses "chung" (中) meaning middle and “ho" (禾) meaning crop. A comparison of the component elements of the original and simplified forms of the word will show at a glance that simplification can make our written language easier, more interesting and meaningful and still retain beauty through simplicity. In the matter of linguistic reforms, we should never overlook the genius of the common people.
But there are other critics who feel that because such samples were formed by the people themselves in abbreviated or simplified form, there is no reason to institute a language reform movement. They assume that, under the natural process of development, these steps will take place gradually of their own accord. They feel that it is not necessary for me to plead for this simplification of the written language because they say that, as the need arises, the law and the people will effect their own changes. They feel that the language should be developed by following its natural course which will solve all the difficulties we admittedly face today.
We must remember that, in all great language changes, modifications and simplifications as well as the establishment of new rules regarding form or style, there were always schools of thought perpetuated by scholars of the land who guided these changes, handing down their experience to their successors who would in their turn guide and nurse the principles of reform until they came to be generally accepted. Blessed is the land where there are propressive scholars, unbiased and unobssessed, who can preserve the best of the old yet also assimilate the best of the new, because we must be aware that in the language reform, the common people are always, more advanced while the scholars, real or psuedo, are always conservative.
But by permitting unguided simplification to take place, there will arise, as there have arisen now, some cases where the language simplification is performed simultaneously in different parts of the land. But, when the changes are not systematized, multiple modifications may produce varied forms for the same word. This unguided freedom of modification is dangerous and may lead, to the very evils which many critics of language simplification now fear.
Without a systematized approach to the problem, there will be developed a haphazard reform movement which will have neither form nor shape, nor prospects of success. This has already taken place in some overseas Chinese groups and those people have difficulty in corresponding with one another. It is this danger of unguided change from which we must guard the Chinese language. The fact that these various groups are taking upon themselves the responsibility of making their individual reforms shows the need of the people for a well guided change.
The simplification and standardization work of Chinese characters is our national demand. Our movement is simply to make conscious efforts to guide and speed up the natural course of the present-day Chinese cultural evolution.