Ever since the Ministry of Education promulgated the 2019 curriculum guidelines, critics have always complained about the “mass reduction” of classical Chinese content. They say it is part of government efforts to “de-Sinicize” education, which has led to moral depravity and degeneracy in society.
With the recent controversy surrounding the omission of the Ming Dynasty academic Gu Yanwu’s (顧炎武) work Honesty and Morality (廉恥) in mind, the issue seems to never age as a hot election topic. However, perhaps it is worth thinking about whether classical Chinese still retains as much significance or importance in modern life as academics claim and what kind of impact it has on the public’s linguistic skills in the long run.
According to the 2019 curriculum, classical Chinese takes up 35 to 45 percent of the selected readings, meaning that students still have 15 famous classic Chinese texts as compulsory readings. As much as classical Chinese is aesthetically elegant and useful for reading ancient classics and understanding ancient philosophy and history, that utility lies mostly with professionals and Chinese enthusiasts. For the public, classical Chinese is akin to Latin — a dead language. As derivatives of classical Chinese, idioms and proverbs are still used in modern language as fancy rhetoric, but not as indispensable expressions.
The purpose of selected readings should be about teaching reading comprehension, as well as oral and written expression. As the public reads, writes and communicates in vernacular Chinese most of the time, it is not worth the effort to have students learn classical Chinese by rote. Further, while classical Chinese is a beautifully concise language, it is a poor (or problematic) means for expressing explicit and clear information. As ancient words and phrases are often ambiguous, experts have been debating if this is why the development of Chinese logic lags way behind Western logic.
From another aspect, critics of the curriculum have always maintained that selected texts play a vital role in shaping students’ values and character, as if to say that if someone has never read Honesty and Morality, they would somehow have no sense of shame or integrity. It is as if they hope to solve all the complex issues in a modern society with Confucian rites and archaic values born out of Chinese feudalistic society by cramming classical Chinese texts down students’ throats.
However, texts and language are, after all, a medium. Whether a person internalizes the values in a text so that it becomes part of their character or conduct depends on the person’s attitude, not what form the language takes or the number of texts written in it. If reading classical Chinese text does make someone a morally upright person, then the concept of a xiaoren (小人), or a “scoundrel, small or petty person,” would not have existed in ancient China. As a result, classical Chinese should not be put on a pedestal, nor should vernacular Chinese be overtly praised for being easy to understand.
The crux of the matter is perhaps the teaching of Taiwan’s languages and how they are taught. As one of the languages spoken in Taiwan, Chinese is the most widespread, and the decline in the public’s linguistic skills show that there is a critical problem. What should be addressed is how to elevate the public’s linguistic performance, instead of obsessing about the number of texts from thousands of years ago.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS