I was forced to do guwen in college (not much learning went on in that class) and sort of picked it up on my own later on. I also did a year with a private tutor using 古文觀止 which was helpful – especially since having a nodding familiarity with the major texts (the ones that sort of semiliterate adults in Taiwan have some idea about, if not total dominion over) is a good thing. It speaks to your competence in their eyes when you recognize the source of stuff like that (although it is not necessary by any means and is mostly a good parlor trick.)
Definitely helpful for newspapers - although the question in my mind is, if your goal is to read newspapers, why not study newspapers rather than going the long way around (assuming you want maximum bang for the study hour/dollar, that is). That said, guwen can be fun if you like that sort of thing. I like to look at it occasionally but I would hate to have to work with it/ translate it/ etc. on a regular basis, although Classical quotes and even passages do occasionally come up in translation work.
I’ve got a question for you Forumosans out there who have studied or mastered classical Chinese (so impressive!)
Having studied several years of Chinese, worked as a translator, and read several novels (Jin Yong & Romance of the Three Kingdoms), my vernacular Chinese has improved greatly, and this has also whetted my appetite for learning classical Chinese. But I’m not sure what approach to take: self-study, group classes (at Shi-Da?), or hiring a private tutor. I’m not sure, but it seems to me that the self-study approach seems quite limited and the group class approach perhaps too slow or not comprehensive enough, so the best would be to hire a tutor. But I guess I would hope that they were as interested in teaching the material as I was in learning it.
Recommendations for best approach for studying classical Chinese?
I’m studying it in my degree right now @.@;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
It’s not all that bad actually… actually… I just realised that I have to write 500 characters of it tomorrow O.O;;;;; So maybe it IS all that bad.
I recommend you start with some of 韓愈’s stuff, out of the pieces we’ve been reading he’s the author who I liked the most (especially his 祭鱷魚文 ). It’s from 古文觀止, like ironlady mentioned above.
The Chinese method to learning the classics is basically ‘Read the translation first, then read the original’. I can’t keep up with my classes just by doing this so I have a tutor, who is brilliant. I think you should get a tutor and read the translations before each class. If your tutor’s any good, s/he’ll brush up on the history and stuff before class so they can teach you it together…about 2 classes for one piece of writing.
Actually, from an acquisitional standpoint (and Literary Chinese really is a different language from modern Mandarin) reading the translation and knowing precisely what the ancient text means as a result is a wonderful way to go about it – provided you get enough examples of the same sorts of things so that you figure out what the correspondences are. Having notes (preferably in English) to explain what’s going on would speed the process even more. All you are going for is comprehension (I assume there is no longer the requirement to write in Classical Chinese, one which probably put my college professor into an early grave after having to correct our efforts) and there’s no spoken channel to worry about, so extensive reading of graded texts would be the way to go.
I’m not familiar with the textbooks used today for Classical teaching, but if you could find one that took that approach, and then provided additional “manufactured” texts using the main point or points you were focusing on for the day, that would be ideal for getting more repetition of whatever you were working on at the moment. The problem is going to be that texts are texts, written without regard to struggling Western students or limiting grammar and vocabulary for our benefit.
Is there a list of common Classical “grammar items” available somewhere? If you could get a list, and then get a student/grad student to write you, say, 10 or 20 sentences using each grammar structure, after working through those you would probably be able to tackle real texts without much problem. I’m not sure that’s a feasible way to go about it, and I’m not sure there aren’t textbooks that are already doing that, but from an acquisitional perspective that would be the way to go. Classic ( ) control of vocabulary while focusing on structure, until the structure is acquired.
I’m studying a Bachelor of Chinese Literature. Not the really nice one at Taida (or Shida?) for foreign students, but one of the normal ones for Taiwanese students. Surprisingly, I’m NOT bottom of the class O.O; Not far from it though XD
ironlady~~ I still have to write classical Chinese! Both poetry and 散文.
Pretty much ALL textbooks have a translation into modern chinese after the original text - it usually goes original text, notations/glossary, translation, background info; in that order. As the Taiwanese say… ‘We can’t understand it either!’
Hey Tsuki, so you’re saying the programs for Bachelor of Chinese Literature at Tai-Da and Shi-Da, for foreigners, are better than the programs for Taiwanese students? I’m surprised to hear that.
I don’t know what scholars say about Buddhist Classical Chinese, but in my experience it’s peculiar partly because it seems like it was an attempt to force Indo-European grammar (in this case Sanskrit/Pali), with its precise tense and number, onto tenseless, numberless Chinese.
Example: using 諸 as a pluralizer[/quote]
I.
A few things:
(1) Buddhist texts were not written in Classical Chinese. They were written in a colloquial form. (Can anyone guess why?) You can find dialectal variance in the early Buddhists texts (東漢 - 三國時期 - 魏晉). (Remember colloquial Chinese a thousand years ago is very different from modern Mandarin. )There is some overlap between Classical Chinese and the Buddhist translation, of course.
(2) There are different styles of Classical Chinese, including colloquial varieties.
(3) During the 東漢 period, when translation of Buddhist texts got going, Chinese wasn’t toneless anymore. It was actually through interaction with Sanskrit that the Chinese discovered the tones – 平 上 去 入 (習焉不察). You can read about this in any comprehensive 聲韻學 book.
(4) 諸 existed in Chinese outside of Buddhist translations. There were other ways to indicate number as well; 眾 was one of them. I can pull out my notes and find the ways and their usage if you’re interested.
(5) The translators took great care in producing fluent Chinese translations. They employed methods that are still in use today, such as pure transliteration (音譯), Frankenstein transliterations (think 啤酒; 芭蕾舞，酒吧) and semantically-based borrowings (意譯). Words derived through these borrowing methods were the start of disyllabic words in Chinese. For example, when wanting to transliterate consonant clusters, they would break the cluster up into two syllables (just like what is done today). Another example: they would use a morpheme borrowed from Sanskrit, and then combine it with other morphemes (魔 came from Sanskrit and then words such as 魔術，魔法，魔獸， 魔手 were derived through combination with native morphemes). (The former notion that disyllabification (雙音化) was due to a reduction in the phonological inventory during the transition from Old Chinese to Middle Chinese is falling out of favor (see Duanmu San’s website).)
II.
If you’re into dialectology, you’ll find studying Classical Chinese interesting (Buddhist texts even more so), because certain grammatical elements, that can be found in classical Chinese, but not in Mandarin, can be found in other dialects. For example, 無 used to be a sentence-final question particle( like 嗎). Mandarin obviously doesn’t preserve question particle 無, but Southern Min (Taiwanese) does. It’s pronounced something like pinyin /bo/ (IPA [bo] (漢語方音字彙) the [o] might be a lax vowel, like the /o/ in pinyin /bo/).
I could write more, but I think I’ve lost most of you by now. (Perhaps Chris is still reading )
[quote=“tsukinodeynatsu”]I’m studying a Bachelor of Chinese Literature. Not the really nice one at Tai-Da (or Shi-Da?) for foreign students, but one of the normal ones for Taiwanese students. Surprisingly, I’m NOT bottom of the class O.O; Not far from it though XD
ironlady~~ I still have to write classical Chinese! Both poetry and 散文. [/quote]
Good for you! :bravo: JIA yoU, JIA yoU!
I think, though, that taking the broad mass of foreigners into account, your situation is probably a bit special. I don’t think that most foreigners who wanted to get some knowledge of Classical for whatever purpose (other than for passing a class) would aspire to writing it or have the need to.
(Once more, another example of something that is required merely to pass a class. Although if you find it fun, there’s nothing wrong with doing it, of course. I’m just thinking in broad brushstrokes for the masses.)
Maybe you can write the first CI-based Classical textbook!
In a way, Mandarin does preserve it, because 無 in Old Chinese is believed to have been pronounced “ma”. So is 嗎 simply a derivation of 無?
BTW, negatives in Chinese and its dialects seem to be clustered into ones that can be traced to words historically starting with m- (無, 沒, 未, 唔, 勿, etc.) and p- (不, 否, 弗, 非, etc.). I wonder what kind of research has been done into this.
They’re a lot EASIER for foreigners to take, obviously. Whether they’re better or not… I can’t say. At a wild guess, I’m going to assume you end up with a much lesser understanding of literature and everything that goes with it, since your first two or three years is actually mostly language study. You also don’t get much time to study with Taiwanese students (I remember when the Taida programme was first announced, the small print down the bottom said “If students feel the need to study with Taiwanese students, they may have the option in their fourth year”. :loco: )
The programme I’m in is (I suppose) roughly a middle-ranked CL programme amongst Taiwan’s universities. A friend graduated from Taida CL (the actual one) and, after sitting in on one class of mine, said ‘Huh. We actually had to take notes in my class.’ To be honest with you, a lot of the time I get this feeling that if my Chinese were better, this would be the easiest thing I’ve ever done in my life - there are practically no difficult concepts at all. But, it’s not, and therefore, it’s not I have a few teachers who dance and sing and pretty much just waste our classtime and tuition money :raspberry: and quite a few good ones, but everything’s very subjective (if you pass everything well,but don’t go to class, you fail; if you turn up early every day, yet fail everything, you just scrape through).
I’ll assume the teachers in the CL for Foreigners programmes are more … professional, but the content covered is far shallower.
[quote=“ironlady”]
Good for you! :bravo: JIA yoU, JIA yoU!
I think, though, that taking the broad mass of foreigners into account, your situation is probably a bit special. I don’t think that most foreigners who wanted to get some knowledge of Classical for whatever purpose (other than for passing a class) would aspire to writing it or have the need to.
(Once more, another example of something that is required merely to pass a class. Although if you find it fun, there’s nothing wrong with doing it, of course. I’m just thinking in broad brushstrokes for the masses.)
Maybe you can write the first CI-based Classical textbook![/quote]
hehe. Actually, there’s apparently a lot of Japanese in the Taida CL programme! (The one for locals, not foreigners). There are quite a few foreigners (mostly Vietnamese, some Koreans, Japanese, Europeans) in the master’s and Ph.D. programmes.
I don’t really find much pleasure in writing guwen - a little, but not much. That may change though, because before I took this class I didn’t like guwen at all! My boyfriend (the person from Taida who sat in on my class) LOVES guwen, and I’m very much a ‘modern literature’ person - we have interesting conversations about poetry (that sounds… so nerdy), and he actually enjoys writing it (poetry and prose). Then again, he’s Taiwanese, but not very many Taiwanese enjoy writing guwen.
I have a teacher in my school who writes Tang-style poetry, I think he’s one of three people in the country who still write and publish it (if I remember rightly).
As for the textbook… I’m actually taking Mandarin teaching classes at school, and the bit that I liked was the ‘materials and textbook writing’ bit. So that’s not a bad idea at all! :discodance: I’m guessing there’s a market for one?
Lol! Reminds me of the time when, awhile back and not knowing much about how to go about studying classical Chinese, I figured I’d audit a Chinese literature course (for Taiwanese) at Shi-Da. The first thing the professor did on the first day of class was to show us “The Secret” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_%282006_film%29). If you’re blissfully unaware of the existence of this film, suffice it to say that it’s an absolute crock of sh*t which claims you can solve your problems through positive thinking…
After that experience, I began to think that it might be time to rethink my approach to learning classical Chinese…
This is my thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it is wrong (I am; see the edit).
One of the functions of 無 was as a sentence-final particle. It took on this ability sometime between 三國時期 and 唐代. Around the 唐 period, 麼 started to function like 無 (in addition to its other functions). 無 and 麼 coexisted as sentence final particles during the Song Dynasty.
(1) 師日：“石橋那畔有，這邊無，會麼？”僧日：“不會。” （《景德傳燈錄》）
(2) 未審今時還有無？（《景德傳燈錄》）
But at some point, 麼 overtook 無.
Why did 麼 replace 無 ? I think 麼 took on the the role as a question particle to disambiguate 無. It’s my guess that 無 as a particle was being confused with its other function as a negative* Also, they were phonetically similar (kind of). 無 is a 微母字; it evolved into Mandarin like this: ɱ- > m-> v- > w- > u-. 麼 is a 明母字 (has had [m-] as its initial since Middle Chinese). Their finals were different, though.
麼 became 嗎. I don’t know the details.
However, in Taiwanese things were different and we still have 無.
* In the Fuzhou dialect, 無 is a negative that is kind of like Mandarin 沒有. When it modifies verbs there is no relation to aspect. So saying: “明旦伊有去，我無去。” (明天他要去的，我不去.) is allowed. Then there are sentences like this 今旦有語文堂無? (你今天有語文堂（還是）沒有？）This sentence could also be interpreted as “你今天有語文堂嗎 ?”. (陳澤平. 1998. 《福州話的否定詞與反復疑問句》，《方言》第一期) This is the kind of ambiguity that I think 麼 solved in some dialects.
Edit: According to Wang Li 王力 (1958 《漢語史稿》)，particle 無 was written as 麼. Particle 麼 was pronounced similar to 無 but without the glide (無 is a 三等 syllable.). The glide conditioned the the change from [m] to [v]. [v] later became [u] in Mandarin. However, since the glide was not lost in particle 麼, [m] was retained. 麼 was later written as 嗎. So it seems “in a way, Mandarin does preserve it [無]”.
I’ve heard this before. It’s interesting. I haven’t found any writing on it yet. I’ll look around 中國期刊網 and see if anything comes up.
As an individual, writing something that is trying to be better/different/innovative? It’s a tough road. Teachers and language centers won’t be willing to adopt it because “we have always used Textbook XYZ” or “Textbook XYZ is published by Major Institution Q, so it is the best”. Then, of course, you get noobs popping onto discussion boards to lambast you for “only” having one book for sale.
There is also very little money in ANY book – even a best-seller – and even less in textbooks aimed at a vertical market, which Chinese teaching essentially is. Put out a beginner’s book and you’re lost in the enormous sea of such products, because everyone believes they can write a great beginner’s book; put out something for more advanced students, and there aren’t enough potential consumers to make any return on your investment of time.
I think the “little people” who do materials and books do it out of the desire to make something useful, not out of any expectation of making money. If you were to end up with a university job, or some other position with an income, it would make a great side project, and I’d love to work with you on something like that if you wanted to. But in real-world economic terms – meh.
Thanks for the appraisal! Never heard it from an economic point of view before…
My materials teacher was telling us how people are crying out for new textbooks in Taiwan. But yes, I think they’ll only ever use their beloved Shida travesty.
I tend to do translating as my main profession (mostly Japanese->English though… for some reason I haven’t managed to find more than the odd Chinese case O.o; Any hints on where to look?) but I’d like to do a textbook. I’m the first to admit that I have no clue as to how to teach beginner’s, though, so I’d stay clear of that road.
I think if you do a fairly ok textbook, and get many universities to at least keep it in stock, then your name gets out there somewhat… which I’m going to assume would be more useful for future projects. So maybe ‘meh’ as an economic venture, but ‘not-too-bad’ as a stepping-stone/card in the back pocket?
My apologies if this is making no sense, I’m currently trying to write about drop bears in guwen on my other window @.@;;;;;;;;
I find that sometimes, just sometimes, people who teach university courses are a little bit out of touch with the marketplace.
Anyway, translation is definitely far more lucrative than materials writing. One pretty much has to support the other. On top of the limited market, you also have the teachers who “just copy” a class set. It might not seem like much, but if you earn $2 a book (which is pretty good) there’s a big difference between $2 and $60 for a set of 30. It gets weird when teacher tell you how they’re using your materials in class, but your sales figures don’t show any sales of class sets.
Writing materials is more useful to make a name for yourself, as you say. Or, since I’m pretty much promoting a new approach to teaching Chinese, doing a beginner-level textbook would make sense in theory, but in practice, if you can’t promote the method in the first place, the materials won’t sell, and if there aren’t materials, you can’t promote the method, and … Fortunately, what I’m really interested in is teacher training in general, because the methods I work with can be done quite easily without any textbook at all (which is another major block in writing one – the knowledge you’re writing something unnecessary.)
I think a CI-oriented classical book would be neat, though. Maybe not well-accepted, but neat.
Material that is aimed at getting the student into natural environments. For example, materials geared at preparing students for listening to real weather reports, then radio dialog, then talk shows (or something like that). Real life radio talk shows could be lessons! This would be far better than the random, nearly irrelevant chapters I had to memorize back in my university days （中國教育制度、男女平等、中國的節日 and on and on). (We used the Integrated Chinese series.)
[quote=“ironlady”]I find that sometimes, just sometimes, people who teach university courses are a little bit out of touch with the marketplace.
Anyway, translation is definitely far more lucrative than materials writing. One pretty much has to support the other. On top of the limited market, you also have the teachers who “just copy” a class set. It might not seem like much, but if you earn $2 a book (which is pretty good) there’s a big difference between $2 and $60 for a set of 30. It gets weird when teacher tell you how they’re using your materials in class, but your sales figures don’t show any sales of class sets. [/quote]
Why don’t they just include the textbook in the course fee? Just raise it by 1000元, and everybody gets their own copy provided by the language center. This should not be that much of a deal if you pay for an entire course.
I’m always quite disappointed that there is so much beginner stuff, but no advanced level books. This is really a problem, I think. But I guess, writing textbooks is really a work for university teachers, who are not doing it for the money.
) control of vocabulary while focusing on structure, until the structure is acquired.
)
I have a few teachers who dance and sing and pretty much just waste our classtime and tuition money :raspberry: and quite a few good ones, but everything’s very subjective (if you pass everything well,but don’t go to class, you fail; if you turn up early every day, yet fail everything, you just scrape through).
I’m actually taking Mandarin teaching classes at school, and the bit that I liked was the ‘materials and textbook writing’ bit. So that’s not a bad idea at all! :discodance: I’m guessing there’s a market for one?