After all, the General Administration of Radio, Film, and Television has always been an institution that only knows how to issue bans. That said, it is not the case that I would automatically oppose, or even ridicule, every ban issued by the General Administration of Radio, Film, and Television. As for this particular ban, overall I am affirmative and supportive.
If replacing foreign-language abbreviations with their full Chinese names does not involve much difficulty, then why not do it? If the difficulty is very great, and switching over and adapting is hard, then all the more reason there is for correction.
One argument is that most people actually do not understand NBA. That is true enough. The advantage of Chinese lies in its perceptibility: that is to say, even if you know nothing about it, merely seeing the name can form a perceptible impression, whereas with foreign languages—especially foreign-language abbreviations—once you do not know what they refer to, you feel nothing at all. For example, when people say “GRE,” those who do not know its meaning probably only know that it is an exam, probably an English exam. But if one says “the American Graduate Entrance Examination”? Or, abbreviated as “American grad-school entrance exam,” how about that?
What I care about, however, is not the question of understanding the content of words, but the linguistic form of abbreviations themselves. The explosion of neologisms and the widespread adoption of abbreviations are both new phenomena in the age of mass media. Traditional English did not need so many abbreviations; abbreviations are a way in which English, or alphabetic-writing cultures more broadly, adapt to the information age. Chinese, or a culture of Chinese characters—unique and full of vitality—should also adapt to the new era in its own way. Chinese is in any case a language of implication; it has its own methods of abbreviation, such as Central Television = CCTV, electronic computer = computer. We too ought to have a way to refer more succinctly, in our own fashion, to things like the American Men’s Basketball League and Formula One racing. But once English abbreviations became popular, we grew lazy about creating within Chinese itself. If, when computer became popular, television media had already been as developed as they are now, and if television had always referred to computers as “PC,” then perhaps there would be no word “computer” today. Yet many computer-related terms have already been occupied by English abbreviations, such as CPU, USB, and so on; but it is not as if Chinese is utterly powerless. For example, “processor,” “through-cable,” and so forth are not impossible to translate.
We say that abbreviations are one way in which alphabetic cultures adapt to the information age. If we are to face ever more new things, then we must also face ever more abbreviations. If we give up adapting with our own language and lazily borrow Western abbreviations directly, then undoubtedly we will possess more and more Western abbreviations, until eventually they occupy an undeniable position in our lived world. The encroachment of abbreviations has already begun, and it will increasingly and profoundly alter our linguistic habits.
Language is the soul of culture, especially for Chinese culture. Its spirit is not only embodied in language, but also condensed in Chinese characters. Changes in linguistic habits inevitably accompany changes in patterns of thought. To protect the independence of Chinese is to protect the autonomy of culture.
Of course, Chinese has never been completely independent; Western languages have long since transformed Chinese from head to toe. But previously, the absorption of Western languages by Chinese took the form of loanwords—that is, taking some established Chinese characters and reinterpreting and reconnecting them to correspond to certain Western concepts. In this process, the characteristics of Chinese characters are still preserved.
And the characteristics of Chinese characters, simply put, are roughly concrete, multidimensional, connotative, and contextual; whereas the characteristics of alphabetic writing are relatively abstract, monotonous, hollow, and decontextualized. Foreign-language abbreviations are the most extreme expression of the features of alphabetic writing: they become utter abstraction, mere symbols, losing every dimension of association, absolutely neutral—just a referential code. This symbol has only one definite extension, no connotation, and is detached from context…
If the flood of abbreviations is not controlled, I fear we will grow ever more accustomed to this monotonous, code-like way of naming things, and grow lazier about creating meaningful Chinese-character vocabulary. People will argue: anyway, a name is just a symbol; as long as I make myself clear and you understand me, isn’t that enough? That will be the most serious erosion that alphabetic culture can bring to Chinese-character culture.
Of course, the unity and independence of Chinese have always been guaranteed by central authority. Without the successive dynasties’ central governments unifying standards for Chinese characters, Chinese civilization would not have come down to us today. On certain issues, I may not necessarily support the democratic approach either.
April 8, 2010
Latest Comments
- unic
2010-04-09 12:59:38 Anonymous 61.178.103.133
You’ve done every kind of bad thing under the sun; you’ve exhausted all legitimacy—who is still going to care about your one act of kindness? Especially for CCTV, this special kind of media.
Indeed, I also thought earlier that changing them into Chinese has its advantages: at least in a Chinese-language environment it can carry more meaning, and it is more perceptible when used. But is this process not something worth thinking through and discussing? To issue it suddenly, without warning, seems abrupt.
Is there any need for compulsory blocking? Couldn’t the two systems coexist for a long time? Or, while emphasizing foreign abbreviations, could one also emphasize foreign full spellings and translations? - Gū Chù
2010-04-09 14:34:01
I affirm this measure, which does not mean I agree that it is necessarily legal. But as for this ban, there is no need to think of it too seriously. As a normative adjustment for self-discipline within the media industry, such a measure is also unobjectionable. For example, the promotion of Putonghua: as mainstream mass media, to communicate in unified, standardized modern Chinese Putonghua—that is good. Certain characters and words may be misread by most ordinary people, but professional announcers should not read them incorrectly; mainstream media should still require a unified standard pronunciation, and that is as it should be. And standard modern Chinese, as we know, originally does not include foreign languages, so requiring a ban on mixed-in foreign languages is not actually something that has suddenly appeared; rather, it is how things should have been all along, just as broadcasts have always been restricted from mixing in dialects. If dialects cannot be mixed in, on what grounds should foreign languages be allowed to be mixed in? Isn’t banning foreign-language abbreviations something that has long been self-evident? Of course, this ban is a form of self-discipline; for ordinary people, it is a standard recommendation rather than coercion. Just as in daily life we can still speak dialects, and can still write with misspellings—no one is going to punish you—but people speaking in certain special public settings, in a special capacity, must be subject to standard restrictions.
As for foreign-language abbreviations, the situation is similar to dialects. On television, certain local programs—say, local folk arts and opera—should of course still be allowed to use dialects; it is only in mainstream news broadcasts that Putonghua requirements are especially strict. Likewise with foreign-language abbreviations: in some specialized programs I think they can still be used, but in mainstream news they should, together with dialects and misspellings, be blocked. - unic
2010-04-09 18:32:50 Anonymous 61.178.103.133
The promotion of Putonghua is related to the development of film culture during the Republic of China period, and moreover, modern Putonghua, with Beijing speech as its main basis, was also selected at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference in the new China era. Media self-discipline is of course necessary, but what kind of thing counts as genuine self-discipline? Shouldn’t it necessarily be a spontaneous action? Was the process behind this matter something spontaneously initiated by some media outlet?
For example, this: http://news.xinhuanet.com/ent/2010-04/07/content_13312375.htm
The first sentence begins: “In the past two days, after receiving the notice issued by the relevant department, CCTV has blocked some foreign-language abbreviations in its broadcasts.” - Gū Chù
2010-04-09 21:08:19
The Heavenly Dynasty’s system of directives itself lacks legitimacy, and many regulations are issued in these odd and peculiar forms such as “notices” and “opinions”; this method was questionable in the first place. But we need not concern ourselves with that now. What I am discussing now is whether the media’s restriction on foreign-language abbreviations is a good thing or a bad thing, leaving other matters aside for the moment. Just because Hitler ordered that 2+2=4, we do not have to refuse to acknowledge it.
At present, China’s media industry is a centrally controlled whole, and the General Administration of Radio, Film, and Television has the authority to provide industry norms; whether the exercise of that authority is legitimate is another matter. Of course it cannot exceed its bounds of power—for example, in ordinary daily communication and academic discussion, abbreviations are still used, and this ban has no jurisdiction there. - Old Man
2010-05-26 10:54:27 Anonymous 10.8.0.2
“Even if you know nothing about it, merely seeing the name can form a perceptible impression”
——————————————————
When you see the Chinese “不可脸书” (“not-face-book”), “Tuiter,” and “OPEK,” what kind of perceptible impression do you form??
——————————————————
Is directly using English abbreviations only because of laziness? Isn’t it also a question of ability?? If you are not lazy, then take ipod, ipad, upod, wepod, facebook, twitter, IELTS, and render them in concise and apt Chinese. - Gū Chù
2010-05-26 14:32:28
When you see the two characters “Twitter,” of course you will form some kind of perceptible impression. I did not say that the impression arising through written words must or has to correspond to the original meaning of the word. In English, the word twitter did not originally refer to some specific internet company, nor did it evoke the meaning of microblogging; face and book also did not originally call up an association with online social networking. These words have all acquired new meanings. Chinese can of course also generate new meanings, for instance “weibo” (microblog), which originally was only the combination of the words “micro” and “vast,” but after being combined it was endowed with a new meaning. During the Tang dynasty, through transliteration, Chinese characters such as “Buddha” and “bodhisattva” acquired new meanings. If new translations gradually take root culturally—for example “Google,” “Twitter,” and also “America,” “France,” “logic,” and so on—then they become new Chinese nouns and expand the Chinese lexicon; if new translations are eliminated or forgotten, then the corresponding phrases disappear as well, such as “democracy,” “science,” and the like. The emergence, development, and growth of new words each have their corresponding environment and issues of competition. But in any case, the growth of these new words is an evolution within Chinese culture: Chinese is constantly changing itself to adapt to new things and foreign cultures. We no longer regard words such as “Buddha,” “bodhisattva,” “logic,” “France,” and “grape” as alien things; they, and the cultural structures they contain, have already taken root in Chinese culture. But if from the very beginning we were only satisfied with saying bodi, logic, and so on as foreign loanwords, then our Chinese would always remain stagnant, and would increasingly fail to keep up with the ever-changing new world.
Of course, some abbreviations or loanwords represent certain foreign brands, such as LG, KFC, iPad, Twitter… If these brand names are not trying to actively enter Chinese culture, then indeed we need not forcibly translate them, because a trademark is basically only a label and has no deeper cultural connection. But if a commercial company is not content merely to be a label for an overseas brand, and also seeks to enter Chinese culture, then they often have to seek an appropriate translation on their own—for example, “Kentucky Fried Chicken,” “McDonald’s,” “Coca-Cola,” “Pepsi-Cola,” and so on. Pepsi-Cola insists on saying in its advertisements, “Wishing you Pepsi-Cola,” and cannot simply say Pepsi as is, or casually render it as “Pai-xi,” because choosing appropriate characters helps it enter Chinese culture in an appropriate way. Some brands do not adopt Chinese translations, and may in fact be precisely catering to Chinese people’s admiration for the foreign, using Western script on their trademarks to mark themselves as overseas brands; this too is a cultural strategy. From whether and how trademarks are translated, one can see that the translation strategy for foreign words implies a cultural strategy, and is not merely a matter of arbitrariness or convenience. - Local Speed
2010-09-24 13:02:15 Anonymous 10.8.0.2
Natural things can never be banned; just look at this http://www.suolueyu.com
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply