閱讀測驗 47-50
There continues to be great debate concerning the Chinese government’s simplification of the
writing system in china in the 1950’s. The utopian impulses behind standardization and simplification of
a living language are always understandable: increased literacy, administrative efficiency, and ease of
communication are praiseworthy goals. But those impulses can also strip a language of its humor,
whimsy, and play, not to mention its capacity to accommodate new concepts and usages.
Actually, traditional characters and simplified characters never were two separate and independent
language systems — they have always existed on a continuum. Many simplified characters are
adaptations from common usage in Chinese handwritten script. Still, it is unarguable that the inability to
read traditional characters is to close oneself off to much of the Chinese cultural legacy — its history and
arts — before the 1950s.
Since I grew up in Taiwan, where reading and writing in traditional characters is the norm,
simplified characters were a novelty and a bit of a challenge, and perhaps, something to be sniffed at.
But when my first job after college led me to Beijing to work as a literary translator, I spent the first
week furtively consulting a little manual of “Simplified/Traditional Character Conversion” before I
became fully comfortable with the new system, including learning to write my name in a way that was
comprehensible to desk clerks. The experience taught me the dangers of being a cultural purist.
Given the increasing flow of published and online materials among mainland China, Taiwan, and the
overseas Chinese communities, a literate reader must have the ability to use both types of characters.
Thus, the answer to the traditional/simplified debate is not either/or, but — annoyingly for policy
makers — both.
【題組】49. What is the writer’s personal feeling concerning using simplified characters?
(A) They are the wave of the future.
(B) They are simply adaptations that come from the cursive script.
(C) They are less interesting than traditional characters.
(D) They simplify paperwork, but lack interest.