Copyright by Wi-vun Taiffalo Chiung 2003 All Rights Reserved LEARNING EFFICIENCIES FOR DIFFERENT ORTHOGRAPHIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HAN CHARACTERS AND VIETNAMESE ROMANIZATION by WI-VUN TAIFFALO CHIUNG Presented to the faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I appreciate the many contributions that people have made for this dissertation. First of all, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Jerold Edmondson, Dr. David Silva, Dr. Jinny Choi, Dr. Mary Morgan, and Dr. Richard Watson for their helpful guidance and insightful comments on this research. Special thanks to the students who were involved in the experiments. This study would not have been carried out without their participation. Thanks also goes to their teachers, such as Hàn-chhoan Lí 李漢村, Dr. Chèng-hong Si 施正鋒, cô Thảo, Dr. Phùng Thị Huệ, and Dr. Nguyễn Văn Hồ̀ng, who kindly offered me their classes for conducting the survey. I am indebted to all my friends who offered me big favors while I was collecting data in Taiwan and Vietnam. They are: Phoè-hun Chng 莊佩芬, Bêng-têng Chhòa 蔡明庭, Lē-koan Tân 陳麗娟, Kiat-tông Tēn 典仔, Kok-cheng Ng² 吳國禎 and Tek-hôa Tân 陳德樺 in Taiwan; Dr. Đoàn, Thiện Thuật, Dr. Lý Toàn Thắng, Dr. Nguyễn Quang Hồ̀ng, Tú Sót, Thế Anh, Hoàng Tiến, Nguyễn Thanh Xuân, Nguyễn Thị ̣ Thu Phương, Nguyễn Nhật Nam, Nguyễn Thị Mai Lan, Nguyễn Hoàng Yến, Cao Lệ Anh, Nguyễn Công Hoàng, Nguyễn Thu Hà, Nguyễn Thu Thủy, Ngô Thị Thanh Dung, Nguyễn Thanh Nga, Nguyễn Thị Bích Ngọc, Vũ Thanh Tùng, Hoàng Minh Thắng, Nguyễn Thanh Nhạn, Hoàng Kim Loan, Nguyễn Kim Thanh, Nguyễn Thanh Lâm, and Trần Hoàng Khánh Ly in Vietnam. I am also thankful for the following friends’ assistance while I was reviewing and digitizing dictation tests of the Taiwanese subjects: Sunny Chiam 詹惠雯, Gî-têng Iûn 楊貽婷, Anny Ho 何韻如, Jenny Hong 洪欣玉, Fanny Hong 洪錦芳, Sarah Yao 姚崇閔, Vera Yao 姚崇瑀, Chun-Shih Han 韓君實, Joy Lin 林薈汝, Jessica Kuo 郭立潔, Anita Lin 林星吟 and Sammi iv Lin 林亭慧. In addition, I do appreciate Jeff Barnett, Ruel Macaraeg, and Ian Connally for their kind proofreading of my dissertation. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Pete Unseth and his librarian wife Carole, who often offered me helpful information for my research. My gratitude also goes to the local Kongsi members, who are the most Taiwan-loving people I have ever met in the USA. Fundings from the Taiwanese-American Foundation of Boston, Dr. Li Yan-Yen Foundation, and Dr. Chen Wen Chen Memorial Foundation are helpful and I am grateful to their support. Finally, I owe all my achievements to my parents Giõk-ki Sun 孫玉枝 and Hoat-thài Chiún 蔣發太, and my brothers Êng-khim Chiún 蔣榮欽, Êng-hok Chiún 蔣榮福, Êng-hong Chiún 蔣榮豐, and Ûi-chì Chiún 蔣為志. Without their support, I would not have been able to complete this dissertation. April 4, 2003 v ABSTRACT LEARNING EFFICIENCIES FOR DIFFERENT ORTHOGRAPHIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HAN CHARACTERS AND VIETNAMESE ROMANIZATION Publication No.________ Wi-vun Taiffalo Chiung, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Arlington, 2003 Supervising Professor: Jerold A. Edmondson In order to address the question of whether or not to abandon Han characters (Hanji), it is important to evaluate empirically the efficiency of Han writing. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficiency of learning to read and write in Hanji versus learning to read and write in phonemic writing systems, such as Vietnamese Chu Quoc Ngu (CQN) or Mandarin Bopomo. Three experiments were conducted in this study. The first experiment focused on a study of reading comprehension; the second one focused on a study of accuracy of writing dictation; and the last was a study of oral reading. A total of 453 subjects from Taiwan and 350 subjects from Vietnam were involved in the experiments. Subjects consisted of elementary school and college students. The reading comprehension tests were divided into groups Hanji, Bopomo, and CQN, in which subjects were examined with reading texts in Hanji, Bopomo, and CQN, respectively. The results of the reading comprehension tests reveal no statistically significant difference between Hanji and CQN groups. However, students from the second vi to fifth grades in the Bopomo group had significantly lower scores than students in the other groups. In dictation tests, subjects were divided into groups Taiwanese and Vietnamese. Tests in each group were given in soft and hard articles. The statistical results of tests on soft article reveal that students in both Taiwanese and Vietnamese groups significantly increased their score each year until the fourth grade, by which time they had the same statistical score as college students. As for tests on hard article, Taiwanese students spent more years in the acquisition of Hanji, and even the sixth graders’ scores do not statistically reach the same level as college students. However, Vietnamese students had reached a college level at the fifth grade. Errors in the dictation tests were also analyzed, and twelve error types were found in the Taiwanese group. The major errors were made due to similarity in sound between correct and incorrect Han characters. The phonetic similarity errors account for 85.70% in the dictation test two. In addition to dictation tests, CQN also showed superiority in oral reading tests. The results indicate that CQN beginners are able to produce about 90% accuracy in oral reading after three or four months of learning, and reach nearly 100% accuracy a year later. In short, these results lead to the conclusion that Vietnamese CQN is more efficient than Chinese characters in learning to read and write. vii Phok-sū Lūn-bûn Tiah-iàu Hàn-jī hām Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī ê Hãk-s…p Hāu-lýt Pí-kàu Chiún Ûi-bûn Chit ê gían-kiù ê bõk-tçk sī beh iōng kho-hãk liōng-hoà ê hong-sek chhek-niû pí-kàu “Hàn-jī,” “Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī,” kap “Hoâ-gí chù-im hû-hō” ê “thãk” kap “siá” ê hãk-s…p hāu-lýt. Chit ê gián-kiù long-chóng pau-hâm 3 khoán s…t-giām, hun-piãt sī: oãt-thõk lí-kái, thian-siá, kap kóng-thãk chhek-giām. Chit ê gián-kiù hun-piãt pau-hâm 453 kap 350 ê lâi-chū Tâi-oân hām Oãt-lâm ê siū-chhek-chiá; siū-chhek-chiá ê ch¬-sêng pau-hâm sió-hãk-seng kap tāi-hãk-seng. Tī oãt-thõk lí-kái chhek-giām lāi-té, siū-chhek-chiá hun chò Hàn-jī-ch¬, chù-im hû-hō-ch¬, kap Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī-ch¬; in hun-piãt iōng Hàn-jī, chù-im hû-hō kap Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī s¯ siá ê oãt-thõk bûn-chiun chò chhek-giām. S…t-giām kiat-kó hián-sī Hàn-jī hām Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī 2 ch¬ chi-kan ê siū-chhek-chiá sêng-chek bô thóng-kè-siōng ê chha-piãt, ˜-koh chù-im hû-hō-ch¬ lāi-té ê sió-hãk gī-nî-á kàu g³-nî-á ê sêng-chek sió-khoá pí chêng 2 ch¬ khah kē. Tī thian-siá chhek-giām lāi-té, siū-chhek-chiá hun chò Tâi-oân Hàn-jī-ch¬ kap Oãt-lâm Lô-má-jī-ch¬; tãk ch¬ ê thian-siá lāi-té long pau-hâm nńg-sek kap ngē-sek té-bûn-chiun ch…t phin. Chiū nńg-sek té-bûn lâi kóng, Hàn-jī-ch¬ kap Lô-má-jī-ch¬ ê siū-chhek-chiá ê thian-siá chèng-khak-lýt lóng tãk-nî cheng-ka, gî-chhián 2 ch¬ lóng tī kok-sió sì-nî-á ê sî-chūn tī thong-kè-siōng tãt-kàu tāi-hãk-seng ê thian-siá chèng-khak-lýt. ‹-koh, ngē-sek té-bûn ê chhek-giām kiat-kó hián-sī Hàn-jī-ch¬ ê siū-chhek-chíá tī sió-hãk lãk-nî-á ê sî tī thong-kè-siōng iáu boē tãt-kàu hām tāi-hãk-seng kâng-khoán ê chèng-khak-lýt; Lô-má-jī-ch¬ tī kok-sió g³-nî-á tō tãt-kàu tāi-hãk chúi-chún. Chit ê kiat-kó hián-sī Hàn-jī ài khai khah kú-t£g ê sî-kan lâi hãk-s…p chiah ē-táng tãt-kàu tāi-hãk chúi-chún. Pún gián-kiù koh chiam-tùi tãk ch¬ ê thian-siá chhò-ng³ chò thóng-kè hun-sek: Hàn-jī-ch¬ lài-té lóng-chóng ū 12 chióng chò-ng³ lūi-hêng, kî-tiong “lūi-sū-im” (chhò-ng³ ê Hàn-jī hām chèng-khak ê Hàn-jī ū lūi-sū ê hoat-im) sī siōng chiãp ê chhò-ng³, chit hāng chhò-ng³ tī ngē-sek té-bûn lāi-té chìam s¯-ū chhò-ng³ ê 85.70%. Tī kóng-thãk chhek-giām lāi-té, siū-chhek-chiá hông iau-kiû kā sū-sian chún-pī hó ê nńg-sek kap ngē-sek té-bûn kok 1 phin toā-sian liām--chhut-lâi; chit hāng kan-tan chiam-tùi Oãt-lâm hãk-seng chò chhek-giām. Thóng-kè kiat-kó hián-sī Lô-má-jī hãk-s…p-chiá tī keng-koè 3, 4 k¯ goçh ê hãk-s…p tō ē-sái tãt-kàu 90% ê kóng-thãk chèng-khak-lýt, 1 tang āu tō ē-tàng tãt-kàu kiông beh pah-hun-chi-pah ê chèng-khak.