<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Hello,</P>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The times are trying and there are surely many worrying things. While the times find us troubled, if such posting as this seem too untimely, please let it not pass or be passed over.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For I suspect what is contained within is in some ways old news, old and stale, to be much repeated several years hence and again.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I wonder if it is correct first of all to believe that chinese(-character) education is still an integral part of the curriculum for the training of Korean specialists? Or for that matter, I wonder what the view and the practice of the academics are in regards to hanja in elementary Korean language training in the immigrant communities in the states and around the world. And whether the curriculums and attitudes are seeing changes in step with the changes in korea itself.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Below are links to two articles from <A href="http://www.ohmynews.com/">www.ohmynews.com</A> which bear directly on this posting. Following two articles were published in the wake of the recommendation by the former ministers of education urging the teaching of chinese characters. I would like to bring your attention in particular to the "readers' opinions" section which are at the bottom of each article. I found them extremely varied in their responses and was especially surprised by the deep emotions that the issue seemed to provoke. Range of opinions seemed to cover the full spectrum of "of course we must" to "of course we must not". Many of the responses are of the spciest of ad hominem attack variety. Others of the more collected variety. The expeletives seem to go through some automatic filtering, ending up often as "shoe." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The following article had 130 reader responses.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Putting the finishing mark on the issue of chinese character education for grade school students</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.ohmynews.com/article_view.asp?menu=c10200&no=69187&rel_no=1">http://www.ohmynews.com/article_view.asp?menu=c10200&no=69187&rel_no=1</A></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The following had 38 responses.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The headaches caused by chinese characters in China and Japan</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.ohmynews.com/article_view.asp?menu=c10200&no=68233&rel_no=1">http://www.ohmynews.com/article_view.asp?menu=c10200&no=68233&rel_no=1</A></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I am prompted to ask this question after several puzzling encounters with vietnamese emigres in the states, wherein one group would deny that there is any chinese language element in vietnamese and another, mostly of chinese descent, who seem to believe that it is modified chinese. Amongst koreans, the breakdown seems to be more generational and hinging on family background. Amongst the very young there seem to be no awareness of the chinese element in the language. Even into the late middle ages, under 70, there seem to be some ambiguity about the provenance and the degree of the overabundance of the chinese element in the language. Then there are of course the families who without thinking twice insist that their children memorize the tang poets. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In particular, I am struck by the almost parallel history between the two countries. Aside from their geopolitical history, they seem to have both had the fortune, or misfortune, depending on whom you speak to, of having a large lexical inheritance from chinese. Further, the characters have been supplanted in both countries by phonetic scripts, by modifed roman alphabet in vietnam and by native phonetic script in korea. Is there a similar firestorm of debate regarding chinese in vietnam as appears to have occurred in korea last year?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>May I broaden the question? I seem to recall reading about some early efforts to do away with chinese characters in Japan in the early period of modernization and a similar effort by the taiwanese natives in the middle of this century. Why has japan seemingly stayed the course as regards chinese characters? Or are they wavering? Is there a movement afoot in japan also which will do away with chinese characters as seems to be the case in korea?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In the case of vietnam and korea, the issue of recognition and use of chinese characters seem a rather complicated matter of history and national identity. But is this not also the case with japan? Is the issue framed and viewed differently in japan or is it even an issue? At this point I am tempted to pose this question in the broadest context and ask why of the presence or absence of purification movement in any language where there are elements that are "not native." Do the chinese think chinese characters are theirs? Do the japanese think the chinese characters are theirs? And do the koreans and vietnamese think of the chinese characters as theirs or not theirs?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>And what is one to make then of the popularity of learning chinese in korea, spoken presumably? Admittedly when all's said and done, in speech there is no character to speak of, and no simple unity of pronunciation across nations or dialectal boundaries. Granted, but I thought that was the point.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>And what of the doublets which seem to be gaining currency: no boog.gyung but beijing, in hangul of course.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Over the last year alone, the news articles suggest that the winds of change for getting rid of "CHINESE" seem to be gaining momentum ". or ?" Already korea seems a de-facto chinese character'less mass-culture. Character spotting is a game in any general circulation newspaper. Even Sin Dong-A seems to restrict characters to uniquely identify names, in parentheses.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Despite the recommendations prepared and signed by the former ministers of education urging the president to preserve and strengthen the teaching of characters, I have recently seen the following articles in the papers. I am somehwhat unsure of the nature of the declarations as to whether the declarations were statements of process in progress or processe which is expected to be in progress or pending being processed into a process in progress.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Apparently, the financial review board will be replacing chinese compounds commonly used in financial circles with other chinese compounds viewed as native words or native phrases composed wholly of native words. Similarly the house will be replacing chinese compounds with new chinese compounds viewed as native words or with native phrases composed wholly of native words. The legal codes will also be expunged of chinese characters by the fall of 2003. This particular announcement did not make clear whether the chinese compounds will be replaced by new chinese compounds or existing compounds regarded as native or with native phrases composed wholly of native words. And most recently, the police reports will replace chinese compounds with new chinese compounds, presumably part of the native lexis, or with purely korean words. Not to be left behind, the medical profession will be keeping pace also in replacing chinese compounds with new chinese..... My recollection is that the priorities were to be given especially to japanese-speak, that is, compounds used by the japanese. I also seem to recall that english is being targeted by the financial and the medical community. I say these changes seem to have rather ambiguous lives as when I go to the web-sites which supposedly have the new "correct korean expressions," they are nowhere to be found. Have above announcements been made in earlier times?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In the context of the purification going on, which seem to in a fashion fit the bill of "gwa.gu.chung.san," I found myself being somewhat confused by what is being cleared away. Afterall, the characters are quite rarely encountered in modern texts. And more often than not, the replacement for chinese compounds are other chinese compounds, presumably well understood by the general public, for whose benefit the replacements were being made. But in my humble opinion, many of the replacements would be not-opaque only to those constantly using them in their various professional contexts, and certainly of dubious value to the general public who would have been better served by full calques in native terms of the compounds which were more often than not themselves calques of latin terms or of compound words of less than 2 syllable english words.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I sincerely look forward to the day when the process of purification is completed. Who can argue against a language consisting of purely of native words, subject only to native word formation rules. Can you imagine what delight it would be to never have to learn a new word, where the compounding or word formation makes the meaning self-evident, where the lexis is not encumbered with terms from unrelated languages whose meaning can only be partially gleaned from a dictionary, and where maybe the mastery of a few hundred words and rules of word formation will make it possible for any thoughtful eight year old to understand everything that is uttered and everything utterable can be contained in them.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Admittedly I have no evidence that that is where the purification process will ultimately lead. What appears to be the case is that many of those urging the purification process seem to have a penchant for using even more chinese compounds in making their cases than those making the opposite case. Am I then to be led to doubt their sincerity?</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>In any case, for all the seeming rambling, I am still left with the feeling that the digressions might be justified as being somehow related to the issue of chinese compounds/chinese characters. Is this an issue only of korean, and only of languages containing chinese elements, or can it be viewed in the context of any language having elements which may not be native. Or is chinese not not native to korean? Or are the issues being voiced even an issue.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I am not exactly one to insist on characters on the ground of homonymy, as it appears to me a settled issue insofar as everyone who speaks chinese, korean, and japanese seem to have no problem having a conversation without insisting that anything be written down for clarification.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>J.B. Lee <A href="mailto:jblee6952@hotmail.com">jblee6952@hotmail.com</A></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Add photos to your messages with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMLENUS/2749">MSN 8. </a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>