51
RECENT CHANGES IN THE
CHINESE LANGUAGE
A lecture delivered on 18th June, 1962
MA MENG, B.A.*
*Mr. Ma Meng is Principal of the Language School of the Institute of Oriental Studies in the University of Hong Kong.
Recent changes in the Chinese language, so far-reaching in many respects, should not escape attention by anyone interested in studying China. Comments on this subject, both in Chinese and other languages, have appeared quite regularly in recent years.† Most of these deal directly with the simplified characters and the adoption of romanization in place of the traditional ideographs — radical changes, which, however, form only one part of the latest developments in Chinese language reform.
Although the extent of these changes has varied in different historical periods, the long process which led to the drastic reforms of recent years began only after China's contacts with the West in the late nineteenth century. The limitations imposed by the traditional language were felt more keenly as the demand for Western knowledge increased. As the traditional language seemed no longer adequate to cope with the new situation, the need to reform it began to appear imperative. The first efforts aimed at language reform came from a small number of intellectuals, including Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, a leader of the 1898 reform movement who also advocated radical political changes aimed at westernization. Their efforts soon bore fruit. Between 1890 and 1913 there appeared no less than six plans for language reform, all aimed at standardizing the spoken language and simplifying the written one. Both of these measures were considered necessary preliminaries to more thorough reforms. The last of the six plans for reform provided for a script based on the Peking dialect and was very similar to the Japanese Kana. This plan proved quite practicable and has therefore been adopted.
*I should like to express my gratitude to Miss Li Chi of the University of California from whose work, Studies of Chinese Communist Terminology (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies, East Asia Studies, Nos. 1 and 2, 1956; Nos. 3 and 4, 1957) I have drawn information in preparing this paper.
51
RECENT CHANGES IN THE
CHINESE LANGUAGE
A lecture delivered on 18th June, 1962
MA MENG, B.A.*
*
Recent changes in the Chinese language, so far-reaching in many respects, should not escape attention by anyone interested in studying China. Comments on this subject, both in Chinese and other languages, have appeared quite regularly in recent years. † Most of these deal directly with the simplified characters and the adoption of romanization in place of the traditional ideographs radical changes, which, however, form only one part of the latest developments in Chinese language reform.
Although the extent of these changes has varied in different historical periods, the long process which led to the drastic reforms of recent years began only after China's contacts with the West in the late nineteenth century. The limitations imposed by the traditional language were felt more keenly as the demand for Western knowledge increased. As the traditional language seemed no longer adequate to cope with the new situation, the need to reform it began to appear imperative. The first efforts aimed at language reform came from a small number of intellec- tuals, including Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, a leader of the 1898 reform movement who also advocated radical political changes aimed at westernization. Their efforts soon bore fruit. Between 1890 and 1913 there appeared no less than six plans for language reform, all aimed at standardizing the spoken language and simplifying the written one. Both of these measures were considered necessary preliminaries to more thorough reforms. The last of the six plans for reform provided for a script based on the Peking dialect and was very similar to the Japanese Kana. This plan proved quite practicable and has therefore been adopted
*Mr. Ma Meng is Principal of the Language School of the Institute of Oriental Studies in the University of Hong Kong.
*I should like to express my gratitude to Miss Li Chi of the University of California from whose work, Studies of Chinese Communist Terminé- logy (Berkeley: University of Calfornia, Institute of International Studies, East Asia Studies. Nos. 1 and 2 1956; Nos. 3 and 4, 1957) I have drawn information in preparing this paper.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.