THE RELATION
BETWEEN THE WRITING SYSTEM
AND THE USE OF METAPHOR
IN ENGLISH AND CHINESE
by
Kang Yuen Ma
Honors Diploma, Hong Kong Baptist University, 1986
Master of Divinity, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1995
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the
University of North Dakota
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
Grand Forks, North Dakota
December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ vi
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
2. THE CHINESE AND ENGLISH WRITING SYSTEMS....................................................2
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................2
2.2 The Origin of the Chinese Writing System ......................................................................2
2.3 The Classification of the Characters................................................................................2
2.3.1 Class 1: The
wen2 ‘Simple Characters’ ...............................................................3
2.3.2 Class 2: The
zi4 ‘Compound Characters’ ............................................................4
2.3.3 Other Classes ...........................................................................................................5
2.3.4 Summary .................................................................................................................6
2.4 The Uniqueness of the Chinese Writing System ..............................................................6
2.4.1 The Controversy over the Pictographic Nature of the Characters..............................6
2.4.2 Reasons to Consider the Chinese Writing System Predominantly Pictographic..........9
2.4.3 The Potential Influence of the Chinese Writing System on Its Users .......................14
2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................21
3. RESEARCH METHODOLGY .........................................................................................22
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................22
3.2 Reasons for Using Metaphor-composing Exercises.......................................................22
3.3 Reasons for Using Naming Exercises............................................................................22
3.4 Aim and Versions of the Questionnaire.........................................................................23
3.5 Contents of the Questionnaire.......................................................................................23
3.5.1 Section I: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Vehicles .................................23
3.5.2 Section II: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Topics...................................24
3.5.3 Section III: Naming Rocks Based on Given Descriptions and Drawings .................24
3.5.4 Section IV: Questions on Personal Particulars ........................................................25
3.5.5 The Difference between the Two Chinese Versions ................................................25
3.5.6 The Difference between the Chinese and English Versions......................................28
3.6 Guidelines for Analyzing the Metaphors Composed ......................................................28
3.6.1 The Definition of ‘I mage-mapping’ .......................................................................28
3.6.2 Principles for Tabulating the Metaphors .................................................................29
3.7 Statistical Analyses.......................................................................................................31
3.7.1 Grouping of the Variables ......................................................................................31
3.7.2 Statistical Technique: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation ..................................32
3.7.3 Statistical Technique: T-test...................................................................................35
3.7.4 Summary ...............................................................................................................35
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS ..................................................................................................37
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................37
4.2 Findings Related to All 335 Participants .......................................................................37
ii
4.3 Findings Related to the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts............................................................40
4.4 Findings Related to the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts ........................................42
4.5 Findings Primarily Related to the 226 Chi-pts ...............................................................43
4.6 IM's and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ ........................................................................51
4.7 Summary......................................................................................................................53
5. FURTHER DISCUSSION ................................................................................................55
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................55
5.2 Concern 1: IM's in Naming Rocks among the Chi-pts ...................................................55
5.3 Concern 2: Influence from Living Environments ...........................................................56
5.4 Concern 3: Influence from ‘Visible Topics and Vehicle’ ..............................................58
5.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................59
6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................60
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................61
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................74
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Page
Structural Classification of Characters.........................................................................8
Distribution of Phonetically Determined Characters.....................................................8
Semantic Versus Phonetic Aspects of Chinese Characters............................................9
Visual Arrangement of Components in Semantic-Phonetic Compounds .....................11
Semantic-Phonetic Compounds and the Selection of Their Phonetic Components......13
Examples of Chinese Noun Classifiers .......................................................................26
Noun Classifiers Used in Section I.............................................................................27
Noun Classifiers Used in Section II ...........................................................................28
Examples of Metaphors Having an IM ......................................................................30
Examples of Metaphors Not Having an IM ...............................................................31
Variable Group A .....................................................................................................33
Variable Group B......................................................................................................34
Profiles of the 335 Participants..................................................................................37
Correlations between Non-language-related Variables and IM’s
among All 335 Participants........................................................................................38
Correlations between Language-related Variables and IM’s
among All 335 Participants........................................................................................38
Gender and Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s
among All 335 Participants........................................................................................40
Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts ...............41
Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts
Who Had Composed 20 Metaphors...........................................................................42
Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts,
the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts ......................................................................................43
Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .......................................44
Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 335 Participants ................................44
Exposure To the Chinese Writing System and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ..............45
Chinese Majors in University and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .................................46
Exposure to Chinese in Life and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ...................................47
Exposure to Chinese in 1996 and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .................................48
Noun Classifiers and IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts
Who Answered the Chinese Questionnaire ................................................................50
Gender and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ..................................................................50
Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ......................51
Language-related Variables and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’
among All 335 Participants........................................................................................52
Correlations between ‘Visible Vehicles and Topics’ and IM’s
among All 226 Chi-pts ..............................................................................................53
Novel Metaphors and Metaphorical Links in Idioms
and Colloquial Cantonese Expressions.......................................................................58
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Page
Chinese Characters as Part of an Artistic Work .........................................................19
Chinese Characters as the Main Content of an Artistic Work .....................................20
Average Numbers of Properties Embodied by the Rocks’ Names ..............................55
Differences in Metaphorical Links Between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts ....................56
Relation between the Use of IM’s and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ .......................59
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
‘The Lord is my shepherd’ (Psalm 23:1a) is not only a metaphor, but a truth I have
experienced through His abundant provisions for my work on this thesis. I thank Him for giving
me a workable thesis topic and my ability to understand both Chinese and English. I also thank
Him for my wonderful committee: Albert Bickford (chair), Steve Marlett, David Marshall and
Xiao Zhao Huang. They have given me much valuable advice on this thesis and been so loving to
me that at times I thought they might be angels. I was also touched by the loving care of Albert,
who helped me with my visa application, arranged housing for me, lent me his car, and although
ill, continued to lead my defense session. I thank him for being my ‘lion’.
This thesis is also the fruit of team work. I thank Hong Kong Peace Evangelical Centre,
Philadelphia Chinese Christian Church & Center, WBTHKC and all my ministerial partners for
their prayer and financial support. I am grateful to Dale Savage for enriching my knowledge of
Statistics, and to those who kindly distributed my questionnaires, particularly Lilian Ho, Kitty
Chow, Doris Lok, Shirley Woo, Isabella Kwok, and Sandy Chu in Hong Kong; and Pat Lai,
Raymond Ng, Perry An, Ted Lindbeck, Paul & Jane Boese, Brian & Diane Webster, Leo Rhee,
Anna Lui, and Wendy Lee in the USA. I also thank all those who spent their valuable time
answering my questionnaires.
vi
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents evidence that there is a positive correlation between the rich visual
elements in the Chinese writing system and its users’ frequent use of visual imagery (specifically
‘image-mappings’) in composing metaphors and naming objects. In early 1997, Chinese and
English questionnaires were distributed to Chinese-speakers and English-speakers in the USA and
Hong Kong, in which they were requested to compose twenty novel metaphors with given words
and to name three rocks given the rocks’ descriptions and drawings. Statistical findings from the
335 questionnaires returned show that among all participants, those who answered their
questionnaires in Chinese, those who had had more exposure to the Chinese writing system, and
those who had had more recent exposure to the Chinese writing system used significantly more
image-mappings in composing metaphors and occasionally in naming rocks. Thus, it is concluded
that the Chinese writing system has an influence on the language use of its users.
vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The general hypothesis of this research paper is that there is a correlation between a
writing system and the pattern of language use of its users. The specific hypothesis is that
because of the comparatively more graphic nature of the Chinese writing system, people who
learned to write the Chinese characters first in childhood and people who read and write mostly
the Chinese characters in life tend to use more visual imagery in composing metaphors and
naming objects than those who learned to write English words first in childhood and those who
read and write mostly English words in life.
The Chinese characters studied in this paper are ‘traditional complex characters’ currently
used in Taiwan and Hong Kong.i They are different from the so-called ‘simplified characters’
currently used in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’). In general, the latter characters are
simplified versions of the former.ii I believed that the above hypotheses were best tested on the
traditional complex characters and their users because such characters have richer visual elements
than their simplified versions. (See Appendix A for some traditional complex characters and
modern simplified versions.)
Chapter 2 briefly discusses the categorization and pictographic nature of the traditional
complex Chinese characters, and the graphic techniques of teaching them, which might influence
the way their users compose metaphors and name objects. Chapter 3 explains how the above
hypotheses were tested in the research and how the resulting data were analyzed. Chapter 4
presents and discusses the findings that emerged from the data. Three concerns about the
research findings are discussed in chapter 5.
In this paper, the terms ‘the Chinese writing system’, ‘the Chinese characters’ and ‘the
Chinese orthography’ are used interchangeably.
i
Although Hong Kong is a city of the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’), the traditional complex
characters instead of the simplified characters are taught in school and used as an official writing system in the
government of Hong Kong. Besides this, at present, the languages mostly spoken in Hong Kong are Cantonese
and English, not Mandarin, which is the national language of the PRC.
ii
Not all traditional complex characters are simplified in the PRC. In some cases, not all components of a
character are simplified.
1
CHAPTER 2
THE CHINESE AND ENGLISH WRITING SYSTEMS
2.1
Introduction
Readers of this paper are believed to have a certain knowledge of the alphabetical writing
system of English. Therefore, the primary function of this chapter is to explain the Chinese
writing system to the readers so as to help them understand the significance of the research
findings in chapter 4. Occasionally, the English writing system is mentioned and compared with
the Chinese writing system. In this chapter, the origin and categorization of the Chinese
characters (hereafter ‘the characters’) are first explained. Then, the pictographic nature of the
characters, which is controversial, is discussed. Finally, the reasons why the users of the
characters may be more visually-oriented than those of the English writing system are given, with
particular reference to the graphic techniques used to teach the characters.
2.2
The Origin of the Chinese Writing System
Chinese characters originated from pictographs. A Chinese character may be compared to
an English word. As an English word is made up of one or more letters written on a line, a
Chinese character consists of one or more components put together in various ways in a typically
square-shaped format. The earliest Chinese writing known to us consists of inscriptions on bones
and shells for purposes of divination in the Shang dynasty (c. 1500-1028 BC). In the
development of the characters, there existed tendencies both to complicate and to simplify, of
which the latter was the main current (Li 1993:3). Today, there are two types of Chinese
characters: the traditional complex characters widely used in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and the
simplified characters used in the PRC. The discussions in this paper refer to the former since they
are the type of characters learned in childhood by all but one or two participants for the research
of this paper as their first writing system.
2.3
The Classification of the Characters
Traditionally, the characters are classified into six categories, although there is much
disagreement about the sixth category (DeFrances 1984:79) and the fifth one. In some cases, a
character may seem to belong to one or more categories, or to none of the six categories. How to
categorize a character relies on its etymology and a person’s interpretation of its written form,
which may be subjective at times. The following explanation and examples of the six categories
are adapted from the introduction to Wilder 1963 and from DeFrances 1984. Although these six
categories are not absolute, they should be enough to give the readers of this paper a general idea
of the nature of the characters.
Chinese terms in this paper are written in traditional complex characters, which are
followed by their Pinyin pronunciationsi and their literal English meanings either translated by
i
This is a system of romanization based on the pronunciation of the characters in the Peking language. It
was adopted in 1958 to replace the Wade-Giles romanization system which was once prevalent in Englishspeaking countries (McHenry 1992:234). Although the first language of almost all participants for this research
was Cantonese, a southeastern language in China, Mandarin pronunciations (instead of Cantonese pronunciations)
are given in this paper to suit the needs of Mandarin-speakers who do not read traditional complex characters.
2
3
myself or the quoted authors. The superscript Arabic numerals are tones of the pronunciations in
Mandarin.i
The foundation of today’s classification of the characters is a printed posthumous work of
a Chinese scholar Xu Shen (86 BC), the
Shou Wen Jie Zi ‘Explaining Simple
Characters and Compounds’, which was published in about 120 AD. It contains 10,516 standard
characters arranged under 534 to 544 primitive symbols which are the origin of the 214 radicals
used today to form the characters. All Chinese dictionaries claim to be based upon the Shou
Wen.
The Shou Wen divides all characters into
wen3 ‘simple characters’ and
zi4
‘compounds’. Based on form or composition, these two classes are each divided into two other
categories.
2.3.1 Class 1: The
Category 1:
wen2 ‘Simple Characters’
xiang4 xing3 ‘Pictograph or Imitative Symbol’
The first category of characters is the
xiang4 xing3 ‘pictograph or imitative symbol’.
Characters in this category are formed according to the so-called ‘photographic principle’. They
are iconic representations of the objects denoted—almost small drawings of the object referred to
by the word they represent. Their meanings are conveyed by their forms, which can be
graphically mapped onto the visible appearances of the objects denoted. There are 364 of these in
mu4 ‘eye’ is an iconic representation of an eye
the Shou Wen. For example, the pictograph
3
zhao ‘paw, hand’, the three vertical strokes represent the
put vertically. In the pictograph
three fingers of a paw or hand (Li 1993:462). Another example is
men2 ‘door’, the written
form of which resembles the shape of the traditional two-leaved Chinese door with projecting pins
kou3 ‘mouth’ is
at top and bottom for hinges. Likewise, the written form of the pictograph
an iconic representation of a wide opened mouth.
Category 2:
zhi1 shi4 ‘Simple Indicative Symbol’
The second category of characters is the
zhi1 shi4 ‘simple indicative symbol’.
Characters in this category are formed according to the so-called ‘simple indicative principle’.
They can be considered graphic representations of the concepts, ideas and affairs that they denote.
They differ from those characters in category 1 in that the latter usually denote visible objects
while those in category 2 represent more abstract concepts, ideas and affairs. The Shou Wen has
125 of these. For example, some characters found in the Shang dynasty belong to this category:
yi1 ‘one’;
er4 ‘two’;
san1 ‘three’;
shang1 ‘up’ and
xia4 ‘down’. The abstract
meaning ‘morning’ is conveyed by the character
dan4, in which a pictograph
ri4 ‘sun’ is
written above a line that graphically represents the horizon—it is ‘morning’ when the sun is right
above the horizon. These six concepts are not visible objects, but are denoted graphically by their
corresponding characters. The positions of the components in such characters were taken into
consideration when the characters were created. This is unlike anything in English, in which
abstract concepts are not denoted graphically by the spellings of the words.
i
There are four tones in Mandarin (or Standard Modern Chinese) spoken in the PRC. To avoid confusion
with the tone references, the footnote references in this paper are indicated by roman numerals: i, ii, iii, iv and so
on.
4
2.3.2 Class 2: The
Category 3:
zi4 ‘Compound Characters’
hui4 yi4 ‘Logical Combination’
The third category of characters is the
hui4 yi4 ‘logical combination’. Characters in
this category are all compound or multi-component graphs whose meaning is derived by
combining the meanings of their components. There are 1167 of these in the Shou Wen. An
example is
ming2 ‘bright’, which is composed of two pictographs:
ri4 ‘sun’ and
yue4
‘moon’. The meaning of ‘bright’ is suggested by combining the meanings of ‘sun’ and
‘moon’. The character
ming2 ‘bright’ is generally not considered a pictograph, but it is
composed of two stylized pictographs and the reason for putting the ‘sun’ and the ‘moon’ side
by side to denote ‘bright’ might be considered graphic. This principle may be compared to
combining two or more morphemes in English to make a new word that uniquely denotes
something, but the situations in Chinese and in English are different: (i) The components in
Chinese are often pictographs, which are absent in English. (ii) Not all logical combinations in
Chinese have their components put sequentially as in the case of the English words, but may be
one inside or above the other. (iii) How the components are put together in a character often
reflects elements of meaning (rather than pronunciation).
Category 4:
xing2 sheng1 ‘Semantic-phonetic Compound or Form-and-
sound Combination’
The fourth category of characters is the
xing2 sheng1 ‘semantic-phonetic compound
or form-and-sound combination’. Each character in this category is formed by combining two
graphs or components (which themselves may contain more than one component), one reflecting
a significant component of meaning and the other reflecting the pronunciation. Of these, the
Shou Wen has 7697. There are two main subcategories of characters in this category:
Subcategory A: A so-called phonetic loan character (see category 5 in 2.3.3) is enlarged
by adding a semantic component to give some idea of the category of concepts to which a
ran2 ‘to burn’ has acquired the meaning of ‘thus,
meaning belongs. For example, the word
so’. In order to distinguish the two meanings, the original character was reserved for the new
ran2 ‘to burn’ was created by adding the semantic
meaning ‘thus, so’, and a new character
3
component
huo ‘fire’ to reinforce the original meaning of ‘to burn’. In the compound
character
ran2, the component
points out the pronunciation of the character, and the
component
helps classify the character semantically.
itself is a stylized pictograph and the
four dots in the lower portion of the characters
and
represent the burning fire underneath
the objects.
Subcategory B: The enlarged character results from adding a semantic component to a
phonetic component. This is similar to those characters in subcategory A, but the phonetic
component in this category was never a phonetic loan character or semantic extension in the first
place. Rather, this phonetic component was specifically used for its sound to combine with the
semantic component. For example,
tang2 ‘sugar’ was formed by combining the semantic
component
mi3 ‘cereal foods’ on the left and the purely phonetic component
tang2 on the
right.
In many cases the same component, though it may be primarily one or the other, has both
a semantic and a phonetic function, as is true of the phonetic component
huang2 ‘yellow’ in
5
the character huang2 ‘sulfur’, where it is joined with the semantic component
shi2 ‘stone’.
Here the phonetic component
not only points out the pronunciation of the character , but
also gives a clue to the color of the object denoted by this compound.
2.3.3 Other Classes
There is much disagreement about the following categories. The characters in these
categories may belong to any one of the four categories above, depending on how a person views
the roots and written forms of these characters.
Category 5:
jia3 jie4 ‘False Borrowing’
jia3 jie4 ‘false borrowing’. According to
The fifth category of characters is the
DeFrances (1984:80), the formation of the characters in this category is based on a so-called
‘phonetic loan principle’. The principle of the loan is akin to the rebus device of representing a
word by the picture of an object whose name resembles the word in sound, as in the case of a
children’s game in English in which the picture of a human eye is used to represent the pronoun
‘I’. An example in Chinese is the use of the Shang character
lai2 (a pictograph denoting a
kind of wheat ‘triticum aestivum’ which was anciently called ‘l «g’) to represent the
homophonous word l«g ‘to come’, a concept which is hard to represent by a picture or a
diagram. The character
lai2 now denotes ‘to come’ only. That kind of wheat, if it still exists,
is probably represented by another character.
According to Wilder (1963:viii), the principle of the loan is not always phonetic. A
character in this category can be used in a semantic sense which is not its own originally, either (i)
by error, substituting it for another existing character or (ii) by convention to designate an object
which has a name in the spoken language but which has no written name, e.g. to take the
character for some obsolete utensil arbitrarily to stand for some new idea for which a symbol is
ge1 ‘to sing’ was taken by convention as the character to denote ‘elder
wanted. For example,
1
brothers’ (ge ). The pronunciation of the phonetic component may or may not be the reason for
the borrowing.
Category 6:
zhuan3 zhu4 ‘Semantic Transfer or Turning of Interpretation’
The sixth category of characters are the
zhuan3 zhu4 ‘semantic transfer or turning of
interpretation’. Wilder (1963:vi) explains that a character in this category carries a meaning more
extended, or derived, generalized, metaphorical, analogous, adapted, figurative, or even inverted
and opposite to the original meaning of this character. For example, the original function of the
pictograph bu3 seems to show a horizontal and a perpendicular line from the lines appearing in
a heated tortoise shell, that is, what the diviner consults; then by extension this pictograph now
denotes ‘the diviner’ or ‘one who consults the lines’. Another example:
wang3 is a
pictograph denoting a fishing net. By extension, this word (and its character) now is also used to
denote any ‘network, cobweb or reticulate design’ and as a verb to denote ‘to catch with a net’,
‘to catch (in general)’, ‘to envelope, to wrap, to gather’. These meanings are gotten by
‘turnings of interpretation’ or semantic extension of the spoken word, and the same character is
accordingly used to represent several senses of the same word.
6
Miscellaneous Categories
According to Wilder (1963:viii), another method of making characters is by modifying an
old character to make a new one which has the opposite meaning. For example, the character
xia4 ‘below, down’ is the physical inversion of the character
shang4 ‘above, up’.
(Characters like these are sometimes grouped under category 2: ‘simple indicative symbol’.)
Some characters are formed by doubling and trebling other characters either (i) to intensify
i
the meaning, e.g.
yao1 ‘the finest thread’ is doubled as
to denote an almost invisible
filament, or (ii) to express plurality or a group of the object denoted, e.g.
mu4 ‘wood’ is
2
1
doubled as
lin to denote ‘many trees, green, many’ and trebled as
sen to denote ‘forest’.
(Characters like these are sometimes grouped under category 1: ‘pictograph or imitative
symbol’.)
2.3.4 Summary
Some principles of forming the characters are graphic-oriented and some are not. The
forms of pictographs in category 1 are closely related to the meanings they convey, but some
other characters were created by adding semantic components to their phonetic components, so
their forms are not totally related to the appearances of the things that the characters denote.
The classification of some characters is controversial because their etymology cannot be
traced. Besides this, different linguists perceive the characters differently, thus making the
classification more inconsistent.
For example, the characters
and
in 2.3.3 can be
considered pictographs, but Wilder, for one, does not put them under category 1.
From the above discussions, two differences between the Chinese writing system and the
English one are clear: (i) the Chinese writing system contains many graphs originating from
pictures while the English one does not; (ii) the components of a character usually are not put
together arbitrarily, and in many cases one or more components refer to the physical appearance
of the object that the character denotes. This is especially true in the case of pictographs and
simple indicative symbols. The letters and morphemes of a written English word, however, are
always written sequentially without reference to the physical appearance of the object it denotes.
2.4
The Uniqueness of the Chinese Writing System
2.4.1 The Controversy over the Pictographic Nature of the Characters
After having evolved for three to four thousand years, are Chinese characters still
pictographic by nature? Although there is a popular belief that Chinese characters are mostly
pictographs or ideograms and thus the Chinese writing system as a whole is pictographic, some
linguists have suggested otherwise.
So far, no one has been able to give a definite answer to the question above. The
application of the principles governing character formation to the analysis of specific characters
are still controversial among specialists in the characters, like Creel and Boodberg (DeFrances
i
Cited in Wilder 1963:viii. Wilder does not give the pronunciation of this character, and I could not find
this character and its pronunciation in any of several Chinese dictionaries. The form of this character gives no clue
to its correct pronunciation.
7
1984:85). These two specialists represent two extremes in the approach to the characters. Creel
emphasizes the semantic aspect, Boodberg the phonetic. A specialist in Chinese characters who
may be considered on the side of Creel writes (Diogenes 1954:97):
The Indo-European languages are composed of words which one arrives at only by
the progressive synthesis of letters and syllables which are directed to the ear.
These words have no autonomous existence whatsoever, subjugated, as they
always are, to the play of inflections, to vocalic changes, and to conjugations ...
The basic element of the Chinese language on the other hand is the ideogram, that
is, the word given definitively, for all cases, genders, numbers, tenses, persons,
voices, moods; the word in its visual, not in its auditory form, the mere tracing of
which often evokes the whole group of ideas or notions that it connotes.
DeFrances, however, is on the side of Boodberg. According to him, the Chinese script is a
phonetic writing system. It cannot be classified with alphabets such as Spanish and German
because the Chinese character is not made up of letters representing individual segments. Rather,
the Chinese phonetic components represent rimes, making them closer to the family of syllabic
writing systems like Kana, Vai, Yi, cuneiform, and hieroglyphic systems (DeFrances 1984:111).
The Chinese script should therefore belong to the family of syllabic writing systems.
Before DeFrances’ arguments are discussed, it is important to clarify what the term
‘phonetics’ refers to in this paper. Specifically it refers to the phonetic components of the
compound characters. Unlike most vowels and syllables of the English words, the phonetic
components in the compound characters can stand by themselves as lexical entries. For example,
the phonetic component
tai2 of the compound character
tai2 ‘to carry (a heavy object)’
denotes ‘platform’ when it stands by itself. Such components are called ‘phonetics’ because
their pronunciation when standing alone gives some indication of the pronunciation of the
compound characters. In the example above, the compound character and its phonetic
component are pronounced the same, although their meanings are different. However, this does
not mean that the meaning of a phonetic component is always irrelevant to that of the compound
character (this is discussed later with Table 5).
Now let us look at some of DeFrances’ arguments (1984) concerning the nature of the
characters, summarized below:
(i) DeFrances’ first argument is about the faster increase in semantic-phonetic
compounds among the characters. He first offers the data in Table 1(1984:84).i The first column
gives data for the approximately one-fourth of Shang characters that have been deciphered to date
(Cheng Te-k’un 1980:34). The second column corresponds to the numbers given by Xu Shen in
the Shou Wen. The last two columns give data based on a twelfth-century work by Zeng Qiao
(1104-1162), and the great Kang Xi dictionary of 1716.
DeFrances argues that the number of characters formed on the basis of the first three
principles of character formation, all of which can be considered primarily semantic in nature,
remained virtually constant from Xu Shen through Zheng Qiao to Kang Xi (1656, 1455, +/-1500).
Virtually all new characters were based on the semantic-phonetic principle. About 97% of all
i
Some wording, but not the figures, in this table has been modified. Characters in categories 5 and 6
(discussed in 2.3.3) are likely to have been included by DeFrances in category (4) in Table 1.
8
characters fall into this category compared to only 34% of the Shang characters. Therefore, the
modern Chinese script is more phonetic than pictographic.
Table 1. Structural Classification of Characters
Category
Oracle Bones
(Shang Dynasty)
Xu Shen
(2nd century)
Zheng Qiao
(12th century)
Kang Xi
(18th century)
(1) Pictographic
227 (23%)
364 (4%)
608 (3%)
(1) Simple Indicative
Symbol
20 (2%)
125 (1%)
107 (1%)
(2) Logical
Combination
396 (41%)
1167 (13%)
740 (3%)
(3) Semanticphonetic
Compound
334 (34%)
7697 (82%)
21,810 (93%)
47,141 (97%)
Total
977
9353
23,265
48,641
}
+/-1500 (3%)
(ii) DeFrances’ second argument is about the limited number of non-phonetic characters
in the inventory, that is, the characters in categories 1, 2 and 3 (discussed in 2.3.1 and 2.3.2).
Table 2 (DeFrances 1984:109)i summarizes the findings of three scholars of Chinese characters
and the data from the great Kang Xi dictionary of 1917. DeFrances points out that phonetics and
semantic-phonetic compounds far outnumber non-phonetic characters in the inventory of
characters, which suggests that the Chinese writing system is more phonetic than pictographic.
Table 2. Distribution of Phonetically Determined Characters
Type of Character
Soothill
Chen Heqin
Kang Xi
Zhou Youguang (1978b)
Phonetic
895 (21%)
660 (14%)
895 (2%)
1348 (17%)
Semantic-phonetic
Compound
3405 (79%)
3917 (83%)
43,777(90%)
6542 (81%)
Non-phonetic
0.0 (0%)
142 (3%)
3969 (8%)
185 (2%)
Total
4300 (100%)
4719 (100%)
48,641 (100%)
8075 (100%)
(iii) DeFrances’ third argument is about the effectiveness of the component of a
compound character in predicting the meaning or pronunciation of the whole compound. With
reference to the data in Table 3, he points out that in the majority of semantic-phonetic
i
This table combines two tables from DeFrances 1984. The first three columns are from one table
showing the figures of the traditional complex characters. The last column is from another table showing the
figures of the simplified characters.
9
compounds, the phonetic component is far better in predicting pronunciation than is the semantic
component in predicting meaning. He believes that “since speakers of Chinese can derive
meaning from sound, the phonetic element, abysmally bad though it is in Chinese as compared to
other systems of writing, emerges as by far the more powerful factor in determining the meaning
of characters in the course of reading Chinese” (1984:129).
Table 3. Semantic Versus Phonetic Aspects of Chinese Characters
Class of Characters
Percent of Characters
I. Purely Semantic Characters
A. pictographic
B. simple indicative
C. compound indicative
II. Radical plus Phonetic Characters
A. Semantic Aspect
1. identity in meaning between radical and compoundi
2. clear but imprecise relationship between radical and compound
3. less clear and even less precise relationship
4. no or obscure relationship
B. Phonetic Aspect
1. complete identity between phonetic and compound
2. identity except for tones
3. useful similarity in segmental phonemes
4. no useful similarity in segmental phonemes
1.3%
0.4%
1.3%
_____
3.0%
1.0%
22.3%
27.1%
46.6%
_____
97.0%
24.2%
16.5%
23.3%
33.0%
_____
97.0%
In short, DeFrances does not accept the popular belief that the basic units of the Chinese
writing system are pictures divorced from sound, and that the meanings of the symbols are readily
discernible even when the symbols are conventionalized or stylized in form. In his opinion, “the
Chinese writing system is an orthography in which the relation of sign to meaning is mediated
primarily through a sound system based on a defective inventory of syllabic signs and quite
secondarily through a semantic system based on an even more defective inventory of radicals”
(1984:128).
2.4.2 Reasons to Consider the Chinese Writing System Predominantly Pictographic
DeFrances’ arguments focus on the indispensability of the phonetics to the formation of
many characters. He may be right in this aspect, but the frequent use of the phonetics and their
usefulness in predicting the pronunciations of many compound characters do not mean that the
i
The semantic component (also called ‘radical’) provides a significant clue to the meaning of a character,
as in the case of the radical
kou3 ‘mouth’ in identifying the meaning of the character
nan2 ‘to babble’.
10
Chinese writing system as a whole must be more phonetic than pictographic, or that it is as
phonetic as the English writing system. Even if all the figures in Tables 1-3 are accurate (different
scholars may provide different figures, depending on how they analyze the characters), they still
do not show the real presence of the pictographic or visual elements in the inventory of
characters. The following are some reasons to believe that the Chinese writing system is not only
more pictographic than the English one by nature (as discussed in the previous section), but it also
has more pictographic or visual elements than what DeFrances suggests in his arguments.
(i) The first reason is that the actual number of pictographs in use today may have a
higher percentage than the 3-10% presented by DeFrances in Table 1. The percentage in Table 1
was calculated with the estimated total number of Chinese characters that have been created.
Wilder (1963:vi-v) points out that the modern standard dictionary of Kang Xi has 40,000
characters. Of these 34,000 are words that denote obsolete items and dialectical equivalents; 2000
more are surnames and rarely used characters, leaving 4000 that are in common use. Of these
3000 are all that need to be studied for etymological purposes. The 3000 ancient primitives are
still the most useful characters; anyone who gets a mastery of them and their combinations will
have a magnificent vocabulary for all departments of literature. The number of pictographs
among these 3000 characters is hard to estimate. However, in Wilder’s Chinese primer of 1963,
in which he teaches the roots of about 1000 commonly used characters, almost every character
has a component that retains some graphic elements, no matter how stylized the component has
become. Another book published in Beijing (Li 1993) also explains the etymology of 500
commonly used characters with pictures. So there are reasons to believe that the characters for
daily use are rich in visual elements.
(ii) The second reason is that many semantic-phonetic compounds have pictographic
components in them. The phonetic components in many compounds are pictographs or made up
of pictographic components. For example, the phonetic component
huang2 ‘yellow’ in the
2
character huang ‘sulfur’ not only can stand by itself as a character, but it also originated from
a pictograph. Its primitive form is , which symbolizes a man standing with a jade stone hanging
on his bosom (Li 1993:137). It is doubtful if many phonetic components were created purely as
phonetic symbols. Instead character-creators were likely to choose phonetic components from
the few hundred pictographs in stock when creating new compounds. Thus there are more
pictographic elements in the Chinese writing system than what is implied by the data in Table 1.
(iii) The formation of non-pictographic characters can also be visually-oriented, which is
another reason to believe that the Chinese writing system is more pictographic than what
DeFrances suggests. This is true in two aspects:
First, although characters in categories 2 and 3 are not labeled as pictographs, the
formation of such characters can be fairly visually-oriented. Simple indicative symbols, for
example, are graphic representations of the concepts, ideas and affairs that they denote. Thus to
some extent, they rely on the positioning of their components to convey their meanings. Consider
the simple indicative symbol
dan4 ‘morning’ again. This non-pictographic character is
composed of the pictograph
ri4 ‘sun’ written above a horizontal line, which depicts the sun
above the horizon in the morning. Clearly, the positioning of these two components is deliberate
and visually-oriented.
The logic of positioning the components in semantic-phonetic compounds can also be
visually-oriented. There may not be a strict rule for the positioning, but some compounds are
11
believed to be created with a consideration of the visual arrangement of their components. Table
4 shows examples of these.
Table 4. Visual Arrangement of Components in Semantic-Phonetic Compounds
Compound
tai2 ‘typhoon’
yuan2 ‘round’
Semantic
Component
feng1 ‘wind’
wei2
‘enclosure’
li2 ‘to plough’
niu2 ‘cow’
wen2 ‘to hear’
er3 ‘ear’
Phonetic Component
tai2 ‘platform’
Possible Reason for the Arrangement of
the Components
The ‘wind’ carries a ‘platform’ on its
back to denote ‘a strong wind.’
i
The
is encircled by the ‘enclosure’ to
emphasize ‘roundness.’
ii
To plough, the ‘cow’ carries part of the
equipment for ‘cutting grain’ on its back
and pulls it along the field.
yuan2
‘personnel’
li4 ‘to cut grain,
sharp’
men2 ‘door’
An ‘ear’ in the ‘doorway’ is to hear.
In Table 4, although the character
cannot visually depict the concept ‘to hear’, the
creator of this character probably tried to help the readers visualize the concept of ‘to hear’ by
carefully putting the components in their ‘right’ places with the ear visually inside the doorway.
wen4 ‘to ask’ has
men2 ‘door’ for the phonetic
Wilder (1963:vi) gives a similar example:
3
and kou ‘mouth’ to signify the meaning of ‘ask’; a mouth in the doorway certainly suggests
‘asking’, on the same pattern as ‘to hear’. Since a mouth is smaller than a door and a door
cannot be put inside a mouth, visually it makes more sense to put the mouth inside the doorway,
not the doorway inside the mouth. Similarly, the component
wei2 ‘enclosure’, as in the
2
yuan ‘round’ in Table 1, always encloses another component, as in
guo2
character
‘country’ and
qui2 ‘to imprison, to take into custody’. The position of this component in a
character is related not only to its form, but also its meaning. So although semantic-phonetic
compounds are not pictographs, the forms and positions of their components to some extent can
be used iconically to denote visible concepts.
Second, the meaning of a compound is conveyed through the images evoked by individual
components of that compound in the minds of the readers. Although this is not equal to direct
iconicity, there is a close relation between the images evoked by the components and the image of
the concept or object denoted by that compound. Let us consider the compound character
huang2 ‘sulfur’ again. This compound is composed of
shi2 ‘rock’ (a pictograph which
graphically symbolizes a rock on the ground in a cave according to Li 1993:304) and
huang2
‘yellow’. The images as well as the meanings of a ‘rock’ and of the color ‘yellow’ are
i
Originally this phonetic component
was the full writing of the character, but the semantic component
was added later (Wilder 1963:141).
ii
This component is made up of
he2 ‘grain’ and a stylized
dao1 ‘knife’. According to Wilder
(1963:209), standing grain and sickle was adopted as the symbol for ‘to reap’. The addition of the ox forms the
character for ‘plough’ as that animal was used for pulling the plough, the use of which was a necessary step before
reaping.
12
combined to create an image of ‘a rock which is yellow’, that is, ‘sulfur’. Another example is
ya2 ‘to sprout, to bud, a germ, a shoot’ (Wilder 1963:281). This semantic-phonetic
compound consists of a semantic component
cao3 ‘grass, vegetation’ and a phonetic
2
component
ya ‘tooth’. It is unlikely to have been created without a consideration of the
images evoked by the components. The images of ‘grass’ and of a ‘tooth’ (which looks like a
bud) are combined to represent the idea of ‘to sprout, to bud’. Therefore, the logic of choosing
components, whether semantic or phonetic, for creating a compound can be fairly visual even in
phonetic components.
(iv) The fourth reason to believe that the Chinese writing is more pictographic than what
DeFrances suggests is that the pronunciations of the phonetics are not always the only reason for
using these phonetics to create semantic-phonetic compounds. Besides the images, the semantic
elements of the phonetic components of many compounds must have been considered when such
compounds were created. There are a few hundred Chinese characters in the inventory that can
be used as phonetic components (see ‘phonetics’ in Table 2) and many of them are
homophonous. For example, the syllable yi4 can be represented by twelve different characters
each having its own written form (DeFrances 1984:97). Which one to use to create a semanticphonetic compound cannot be totally arbitrary. To assign a sound for an idea or object which by
nature has no sound of its own may be arbitrary, but the semantic aspect of the chosen phonetic
component cannot be totally irrelevant to the overall meaning of the compound. Table 5 shows
five examples of semantic-phonetic compounds, the phonetic components of which were probably
selected with reference to their meanings.i The third column shows lists of phonetics which sound
identical in Mandarin except for their tones,ii and which could have been chosen to compose their
corresponding compounds.
The rimes of these phonetics are identical to those of their
corresponding compounds in Mandarin. The fifth column gives the possible reasons for selecting
those phonetics and not others.
These examples show that semantic-phonetic compounds are not totally phonetic. The
semantic elements as well as the images evoked by the phonetic components of many compounds
still play an important part in reflecting the meanings of such compounds. If the phonetic
component of a compound has both semantic and phonetic functions, one may even say that this
compound as a whole ‘weighs’ more semantic than phonetic. Besides this, some of the semanticphonetic compounds, like
shi1 ‘lion’ above, may actually be categorized as logical
combinations, thus reducing the number of such compounds in category 4 in Table 1.
i
The ancient pronunciations of these compounds and those of their phonetic components might be
different from their modern Mandarin pronunciations presented here because these compounds might have been
created in different dialects in different dynasties.
ii
It is unknown if the tones of the phonetic components were considered when they were used to make the
compounds. Tones in different Chinese dialects are different, e.g. there are four tones in Mandarin and six (some
say nine) in Cantonese and Ancient Chinese (McHenry 1992:234).
The ancient tones of these phonetic
components might be very different from their modern Mandarin tones.
13
Table 5. Semantic-Phonetic Compounds and the Selection of Their Phonetic Components
Semantic-phonetic
Compound
Semantic
Component
1.
xi1‘clear
(usually referring
to something
visible)’
1.
2.
si4 ‘a group
of four horses’
2.
ma3
‘horse’
3.
shi1
‘corpse’
3.
shi1 ‘corpse’
i
i
ri4 ‘sun’
Some Possible
Phonetics that could
have been Chosen
Actual Phonetic
Selected
Possible Reason for the
Selection
xi1 ‘to separate,
to analyze’
xi2 ‘practice’
xi1 ‘rest’
xi1 ‘hope’
xi2 ‘mat, seat’
xi1 ‘to know’
xi1 ‘evening’
xi3 ‘happy’
xi4 ‘system’
1.
xi1 ‘to
separate, to
analyze’
1.
Under the ‘sun’, it is
easier to see and to
analyze,’ and thus it
is ‘clear’.
si4 ‘four’
si3 ‘to die,
dead, death’
si4 ‘temple’
si1 ‘private’
si1 ‘to take
charge of, to
manage’
si1 ‘refined,
gentle’
si1 ‘to think’
si1 ‘silk’
si4 ‘wantonly’
2.
si4
‘four’
2.
‘Four’ plus ‘horse’
mean ‘a group of
four horses’.
3.
si3 ‘to
die, dead,
death’
3.
A ‘corpse’ which is
‘dead’ is a ‘corpse’.
In this compound character, the two components seem to have both semantic and phonetic functions.
14
4.
5.
shi2 ‘eclipse,
to lose (money),
to erode’
4.
shi1 ‘lion’
5.
chong2
‘worm’
(a radical
not
pronounced)
‘of the
animal
class’
shi2 ‘to eat’
shi1 ‘teacher,
master’
shi1 ‘to lose’
shi4 ‘to swear,
to vow’
shi4 ‘to show’
shi4 ‘correct,
right’
shi3 ‘pig’
shi4 ‘style’
shi2 ‘stone’
shi4
‘marketplace’
shi2 ‘ten’
shi4 ‘lifetime’
shi4 ‘surname’
shi3 ‘history’
shi2 ‘solid,
true’
shi2 ‘to
4.
4.
An ‘eclipse’ is like a
leaf being eaten
slowly by a worm.
5.
‘Lions’ are
‘masters’ among
animals.
eat’
5.
shi1
‘teacher,
master’
To conclude, the pictographic elements in the characters must be more than what
DeFrances suggests in his arguments. The 97% of semantic-phonetic components in the inventory
does not mean that the Chinese writing system is 97% phonetic and 3% non-phonetic. Visual
elements are not confined to the pictographs. There are rich visual elements in all categories of
characters, and many phonetic components are characters originating from pictographs. It should
also be noted that despite the rapid increase in semantic-phonetic compounds throughout Chinese
history, non-phonetic characters also increased from 227 in the Shang Dynasty (c. 1500-1028 BC)
to around 1500 when the Kang Xi dictionary was published in 1716 (see Table 1). One may
wonder why DeFrances says that “virtually all new characters were based on the semanticphonetic principle” (1984:84). The Chinese have never ceased to use their pictographic principle
to create characters, or become less visually-oriented when creating various compound
characters. The Chinese writing system is full of visual elements as well as phonetic ones.
2.4.3 The Potential Influence of the Chinese Writing System on Its Users
How may the Chinese writing system influence the pattern of language use of its users?
The rich visual elements in the characters may more often draw the users’ attention to the visible
properties of objects like shape and size than to other properties like sound and weight, resulting
in their using more visual imagery in their literature like metaphors and names. In other words,
the writing system first influences the users’ ways of relating things in the world, and then the
users unconsciously depict this influence in their use of the language.
Besides the visual elements in the Chinese writing system itself, the graphic techniques for
teaching the characters may also reinforce the influence above, resulting in the users’ tendency to
use more visual imagery in their language. Such graphic techniques are not inherent in the
15
Chinese writing system, but they are ‘direct products’ of this unique writing system, and are
founded upon the following factors:
(i)
As even DeFrances admits, the inventories of both syllabic signs and radicals in the
Chinese writing system are ‘defective’ (1984:129). They are defective in that they are
not as well organized as the English alphabet. A substantial number of ‘visually-oriented
memory aids’ are necessary as learners attempt to absorb these thousands of characters,
far more than in the English writing system.
(ii)
Many characters have the potential to be explained graphically because they originated
from pictographs or contain pictographic elements. English words by nature do not have
the same potential. These characters naturally draw the learners’ attention more to the
semantic function rather than to the phonetic function of their components. A graphic
approach which emphasizes mappings between the forms of the characters and their
meanings seems a natural choice to learn such characters.
(iii)
There is a popular belief that all Chinese characters are pictographs or at least highly
pictorial. This belief may not be totally correct, but it inevitably influences the way most
learners perceive these characters. Since they perceive these characters as drawings—
though stylized, they tend to use a more graphic approach to learn them.
The following are some other factors for the popular use of a graphic approach to teach or
to memorize the characters.
(i) The first factor is that the phonetics of the characters do not help much in learning the
forms of the characters. As a result, learners must memorize the whole forms of the several
thousand characters in addition to the forms of their individual components. DeFrances points out
that “some characters which lack a phonetic element or have phonetic elements whose
pronunciation is not useful in determining the pronunciation of the whole character must be
learned by brute force mainly by memorizing the total configuration or by handling the graphic
components with some mnemonic approach...The main burden is still learning the 895 phonetics.
In some cases, it may be more practical to memorize a whole character and its pronunciation than
to make use of its obscure and seldom used phonetics” (1984:128). Wilder also believes that
“writing Chinese characters is a task of memory” (1963:iii). Although phonetics are widely used
in creating characters, they have limited help in learning the characters. The phonetic of a given
character may be helpful in guessing its pronunciation (though not always 100% accurately), but it
does not work the opposite way from its pronunciation to its written form. In English, one who
knows the 26 letters may guess the spelling of a word fairly closely by hearing its pronunciation.
If a Chinese learner has not seen a character before, it is almost impossible for her to guess its
written form by hearing its pronunciation, even if she knows the few hundred Chinese radicals and
phonetics because the possible combinations of these radicals and phonetics are far more
numerous than those of the letters in English. If the Chinese phonetics are compared to the
English letters, then the Chinese learners have a few more hundred ‘letters’ to learn in addition to
the few hundred radicals. Since many of these phonetics are homophonous, in order to learn them
and to be able to identify them in the compounds, the learners need graphic techniques to
memorize their written forms visually.
(ii) The second factor is that such a graphic approach is encouraged by Chinese primers
and reference books on the Chinese characters. It is commonly found in such books that the
etymology of the characters and the logic of the combinations of their components are explained
16
with pictures. Much more weight is put on the picture-like appearance of the characters than the
relations between their forms and their pronunciations. The following example is from Wilder’s
Chinese primer.i This English book was probably written for English-speaking learners of Chinese
characters. Although it was not meant to teach Chinese characters to native Chinese speakers, the
way Wilder explains the components of this character graphically is similar to that a Chinese
teacher (in Hong Kong) does to her students of Chinese characters. In this example, even the
phonetic component is explained with visual imagery. On the last line of the paragraph, Wilder
also suggests a semantic reason for using the phonetic in this character.
chiao4, A sedan, chair
ch’e 1, Radical 159, a cart, a barrow
ch’ao 2, Phonetic; something high, as a tree, the top of which
bends forwards. It is composed of:
yao1, and
kao1. Yao1
is a man bending his head forward getting ready to jump.
ch’iao 2 is the phonetic in bridge,
and as a sedan chair when
carried looks like a moving bridge, this may be the reason for
using this phonetic in sedan chair.
A similar graphic approach is used by the book published in Beijing (Li 1993:336). This
book traces the roots of 500 commonly used Chinese characters. Written in English, it was
probably meant to be a reference book for English-speaking learners of the characters. Although
it was not primarily written for native Chinese speakers, Li’s approach of mapping pictures onto
different components of the characters is commonly found in elementary Chinese classes for
native Chinese speakers (in Hong Kong). In this example, the earliest form (used in the 16th-11th
century BC) of this character is explained with a drawing. The seven characters to the left of the
drawing show the evolution of the form of this character from the 16th century BC to 420 AD.
The modern gloss and the classification of this character are not given in the book. It may be
classified either as a logical combination or as a semantic-phonetic compound (if the component
tun2 ‘pig’ is considered a phonetic component), but not a pictograph. From this example, it
is clear that a character does not have to be a pictograph to be explained with pictures.
This mnemonic approach is different from the common visual aid that uses an image to
explain the meaning of a word, e.g. to show the drawing or photograph of a piano beside the
word ‘piano’ to help the learners associate the word with the thing denoted. This type of visual
aid is common in both Chinese and English. However, there is something else in the case of the
Chinese characters. A whole character and its components are often explained graphically, but in
English, seldom is a word broken into morphemes and each presented with an image, then the
meanings conveyed by the images combined to teach the word’s meaning. For example, one
generally would not, in an English primer, see a picture of ‘rain’ and a picture ‘bow’ to teach the
word ‘rainbow’.
i
This book was published in Taiwan, which does not use the Pinyin romanization of the PRC. The
pronunciations in this example are romanized the Taiwanese way.
17
Text below the picture: Its original
meaning was ‘piglet.’
It was
composed of
, pig, and , meat
in oracle bone inscriptions, while in
bronze inscriptions,
, hand was
added, symbolizing a pig raised to
be eaten.
This mnemonic approach applied to the characters is also different from that used to help
memorize the pronunciation of an English word. For example, to help memorize how the English
word ‘pictograph’ sounds, one might create a sentence like ‘I prefer pickles to grass,’ but such
strategies to help memorize spellings of the English words are rare. In contrast, mnemonics to
help memorize the forms of Chinese characters are much more common than those to help
memorize the pronunciations of the characters. Therefore, learners of the characters may easily
find their minds filled with images and forms of the characters. Having a good visual memory
may be crucial to learning the characters well.
Along with the common practice of mapping pictures onto the characters, the
pronunciations of the phonetics are played down, and connecting the phonetic components and
the pronunciations of the characters is usually not emphasized in the Chinese primers, which leads
to a predominantly graphic approach to learn the characters. That a phonetic component in a
compound character is superior in predicting pronunciation than is the semantic component in
predicting meaning (as DeFrances says) is one thing. Whether the learners actually learn the 895
phonetics and use them to figure out the pronunciations of the characters is another. In reality,
the pronunciations are often learned and memorized without direct reference to the phonetic
components. This is because the phonetics are not reliable for identifying the sounds of the
characters, especially when some phonetics were chosen in ancient China in various dialects which
are different from that spoken by the learners. It is also because, as Wilder (1963:vii) points out,
“the Chinese custom requires that only the latter part of the sound of a phonetic shall be like that
of the character whose sound it indicates.” Sometimes the onset of the syllable of one of the
components in a characters is combined with the rime of the syllable of the phonetic component to
make the sound of the whole character. Sometimes, the sound of the phonetic component is the
sound of the whole character. Sometimes, there is no way to guess the onset of a syllable from
any of the components of a character. As a result, the learners cannot rely much on the phonetics
to help them learn the characters. The meaning, the form and the pronunciation of a character are
therefore learned simultaneously but separately, and usually only the meaning and the form may
be associated with each other through some mnemonic devices. In most Chinese primers (for
18
traditional characters), even if the phonetic transcription of a character is given somewhere, there
is usually no explanation how the pronunciation of that character is related to the pronunciation of
its phonetic component. The approach to learn the characters is thus more graphic than phonetic.
(iii) Some traditional Chinese games enhance the perception and appreciation of the
characters as pictures among native and non-native learners, thus indirectly promoting a graphic
approach of learning the characters. Such games, sometimes called
deng1 mi2 ‘lantern
puzzles’, are often built upon the graphic forms of the characters. A puzzle like the following is
found in Hong Kong and it works only with traditional complex characters:
a phoenix has flown away to eat worm;
seven men walk in the bushes;
rains fall upon a skewed mountain;
half of a friend is in the sky.
The answer to this puzzle is the idiom
, which refers to a relaxing chat about
anything under the sun, such as ‘wind and flower’. Each of the four words in this idiom is
written with a character that is the answer to one line in the puzzle:
feng1 ‘wind’ (a semantic-phonetic compound, but close to a simple indicative
symbol)
hua1 ‘flower’ (a stylized pictograph symbolizing a bunch of flowers)
shuo1 ‘to talk, to tell’ (a simple indicative symbol; it sounds the same as
xue3 ‘snow’ in Cantonese, which is the real answer to the third part of the
puzzle above)
yue4 ‘moon’ (a stylized pictograph symbolizing a new moon)
What is important is that this puzzle works graphically. Here is the explanation of the first
character. The character
feng2 ‘female phoenix’ is composed of
niao3 ‘bird’ with a little
horizontal stroke above it, both of which are covered by another component
which
graphically symbolizes the feather and the long tail of the phoenix. In the puzzle, the phrase ‘has
has to
flown away’ sounds similar to ‘fly bird’ in Cantonese, so it implies that the component
be taken away. The phrase ‘to eat worm’ then gives a hint to fill up the space with the radical
derived from the character
chong2 ‘worm’ to yield the character
feng1 ‘wind’.
Such puzzles are not quite the same as some word games in English, like Anagram in
which the player thinks of as many different words as possible with the letters of a given word,
and Scrabble in which the player builds English words with the letters acquired. The Chinese
puzzle above is different in that it takes the semantic aspect of the written components and their
positions in the compounds into consideration.
There are of course Chinese puzzles that play with the pronunciations of the characters,
but they are rare—at least in Hong Kong where the Chinese-speaking research participants for this
paper (and I myself) grew up.
(iv) The Chinese art of calligraphy is another factor for the popular use of a graphic
approach of learning the characters. It fuels the perception and appreciation of the characters as
pictures among native and non-native learners. The characters are commonly admired as art
pieces, and there are numerous ways to ‘draw’ them. English calligraphy usually does not stand
by itself as the main content of a painting, but Chinese calligraphy often does. Chinese calligraphy
is also a compulsory subject in most primary schools in the PRC (and Hong Kong where most
19
Chinese-speaking participants for this research grew up). There are also Chinese calligraphy
competitions in schools of different levels.
Learning the characters and learning artistic
handwriting—a visual skill—go together. Figure 1 (Ch’en 1966:255) shows a portion of a Chinese
artistic work in which the Chinese characters are an important part. In Figure 2 (Ch’en
1966:105), the characters are the main content of the artistic work, which was originally a letter
of an official who was famous for his calligraphy.
Figure 1. Chinese Characters as Part of an Artistic Work
(v) Another factor is the semantic classification of the characters in most Chinese
dictionaries, which makes it necessary to learn the characters with a more graphic approach.
Most dictionaries of the traditional complex characters only have an index of strokes without a
phonetic index,i because they use the semantic classification, not the phonetic classification of the
characters (see Appendix B for samples of dictionary indexes). Even DeFrances is surprised that
the Chinese chose a semantic basis rather than a phonetic one for their system of classification
(1984:93) although there are hundreds of phonetics and thousands of semantic-phonetic
compounds in the inventory. Because of this non-phonetic classification, in order to look up a
character in a dictionary, one has to know its basic meaning, its radical and the number of strokes
of that radical (sometimes of the whole character). Knowing its pronunciation hardly helps in the
process.
i
In the PRC, where the Pinyin romanization is used, dictionaries usually include an alphabetical Pinyin
index of the characters in addition to the index by number of strokes.
20
One may argue that looking up an English word in a dictionary also requires one to know
its spelling and that such is visual. This is true, but in the case of the Chinese characters, the
pronunciation of a character is not crucial to looking it up. The learner relies more heavily on her
memory of the visual form of the character than an English learner on the spelling of a word. In
English, the pronunciation allows one to guess the spelling; in Chinese, this is very difficult.
While English has 26 letters, Chinese has hundreds of phonetics, each different in shape. Even if
one knows the pronunciation of a character, it will still be difficult for her to figure out the right
phonetic to look up in the dictionary.
Figure 2. Chinese Characters as the Main Content of an Artistic Work
Moreover, there are two ‘problems’ with the categorization of the Chinese characters
which further reinforce the need to know the visual components in the characters.
The first problem is that the categorization of the characters may vary from one dictionary
to another. According to DeFrances (1984:92), the arrangement of characters into some sort of
order was not accomplished until about 120 AD. At that time, Xu Shen compiled an etymological
dictionary in which he arranged 9353 characters under 540 semantic keys (or ‘significs’ or
‘radicals’). The later dictionaries reclassified the characters under 214 radicals. The
classification was again reconsidered in the PRC with the introduction of the simplified characters.
Recent publications have variously classified characters under 186, 189, 191, 225, 226 or 250
radicals, in addition to the traditional 214. Each classification is a haphazard hodgepodge of
concepts ranging from the specific to the general: mankind, ten, knife, mountain, step with the left
foot, water, fire, tongue, insect, mineral, door, wind, high, ghost, bird, dragon, and so on. These
radical systems constitute a Procrustean bed into which all Chinese characters have been forced by
dictionary-makers. And forced indeed they are at times, as puzzled students attempt to guess
21
what component of a character has been chosen as its radical and hence where the character is
likely to be found in a dictionary. The deficiencies of semantic classification can be illustrated by
the fact that a popular student dictionary contains a ‘List of Characters Having Obscure
Radicals’ that includes one twelfth of its 7773 graphs. Therefore, the use of a Chinese dictionary
is sometimes a trial-and-error exercise. If one component is not the right radical, try another.
This requires the learner to know (at least roughly) what components the characters have. Having
good memories of the visual forms of the characters is certainly an advantage.
The second problem with the categorization of the characters is that some characters are
forced and sometimes arbitrarily allotted under one or another key in a dictionary. DeFrances
gives a good example: “placing the character
wang2 ‘king’ under the radical
yu4 ‘jade’
seems quite arbitrary since there has not appeared to be any semantic connection between the
two, as there is supposed to be between a radical and the characters subsumed under it. The
character
is written as —that is without the dot—when it occurs as the radical component of a
character, and in this form it is identical with
wang2 ‘king’, the origin of which is obscure.
is placed under the
radical because of their identity in shape, not
Apparently the character
because of any semantic relationship” (1984:95). If the learner can memorize visually what
components the characters have, she may use the dictionaries more efficiently. This example also
shows that even the dictionary-makers do form-matching not sound-matching among the
characters. They, too, are visually-oriented when they categorize the characters.
2.5
Conclusion
The Chinese writing system may not be totally visual, but the learning of it requires one to
do many visual exercises like memorizing the forms of the characters, mapping pictures onto
characters, etc. Learning the English writing system also requires one to use sight, but with the
phonetic help of the letters, the burden to memorize the spellings of the words is lighter. Owing to
its comparatively more phonetic nature, the English writing system is not usually learned with a
graphic approach. On the contrary, the rich visual elements in the Chinese writing system makes
it somehow necessary to use a graphic approach to learn it, or at least it directly encourages this
approach.
The Chinese writing system and the English one are by nature different. From the creation
of many characters and compounds to the popular ways of learning the characters, more visual
imagery is used and required in the Chinese writing system than in the English writing system.
Such a strong emphasis on visual imagery may significantly influence native Chinese learners who
grew up writing and reading the characters. It is claimed in this paper that they tend to be more
visually-oriented in perceiving things in the world, and that this can be reflected in the greater use
of visual imagery in metaphors and names. This does not mean that they do not analyze or study
the invisible properties of objects and abstract ideas, or that they are phonetically insensitive, but
that they have a higher tendency to make visual associations among different things than people
who grew up writing and reading the English writing system.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
According to Whorf, “every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, in
which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only
communicates, but also analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relations and phenomena,
channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness” (1956:252). Whorf sees that a
language may influence the way its users notice or neglect types of relations and phenomena in the
world. If this is true, then influenced by the rich visual elements in the Chinese writing system,
people who grew up learning and using mostly this writing system may be more visually-oriented
than those who did not. The primary aim of the research in this paper is therefore to find out if
users of the Chinese writing system are significantly more visually-oriented when they relate
different things in the world.
The following sections explain the methods chosen for the
research, the design of the questionnaire, the guidelines for tabulating the research data, and the
statistical techniques used to analyze the data.
3.2
Reasons for Using Metaphor-composing Exercises
The primary ‘test’ used in the research was composing metaphors. This was used
because, as Lakoff (1980:3) emphasizes, “the way we think, what we experience, and what we do
every day is very much a matter of metaphor.” Metaphors are an important part of human life.
They are common experiences in the lives of Chinese speakers and English speakers, whether or
not they are conscious of using metaphors in their languages. Therefore, the metaphor-composing
exercises would not favor either group of speakers in the research because they all know how to
compose metaphors.
Besides this, metaphors “are examples par excellence of cultural models ... by their very
nature as projections of secondary onto primary subjects, [they] connect separate ideas into single
concepts” (McNeill 1987:204). So the way a person composes a metaphor by mapping a
secondary subject onto a primary one may reflect the way she notices relations in the world. This
does not mean that she is totally ignorant of other relations, but the language she uses somehow
predisposes her to a certain type or types of relations over others. One specific aim of this
research thus is to determine the extent that speakers depend on visual likeness in metaphors,
whether this varies from one language to another, and whether the type of writing system
influences this variation.
3.3
Reasons for Using Naming Exercises
Naming visible objects was the secondary test used in the research. By analyzing the
names given by the participants to visible objects, one may find out whether the participants
focused more on the visible properties than the invisible properties of the objects. This method
was secondary because it did not directly test how the participants related different things in the
world since usually only one thing was involved in a naming process. However, a name may still
indirectly reflect how a person relates different things in the world if the name itself is a
metaphorical expression. For example, naming a rock ‘X-Rock’ does not involve any
metaphorical link between the rock and another thing in the world, but naming it ‘Fish Bone’
22
23
because the rock resembles a fish bone in shape, or naming it ‘Anchor’ because it is as heavy as
an anchor are results of metaphorical links. In the name ‘Fish Bone’, the metaphorical link
between the rock and the fish bone is visual, but in the name ‘Anchor’, it is non-visual.
3.4
Aim and Versions of the Questionnaire
The research was conducted with a questionnaire (see Appendix C for the English
version), which aimed to find out the frequencies of using visual imagery—specifically, imagemappingsi—of different language groups in composing metaphors and naming objects.
The questionnaire had three versions: two Chinese versions (with and without noun
classifiers) and one English version. The Chinese versions were written with traditional complex
characters with which all Chinese-writing participants were familiar. The three versions allowed
any participant who knew either Chinese or English to participate. Chinese participants who
knew both languages (‘Chinese bilinguals’) answered either a Chinese questionnaire or an
English one. They chose the language which they felt more comfortable to answer. If they chose
the Chinese one, they answered in Chinese and were requested to write traditional complex
characters; if English, they answered in English. The two Chinese versions were randomly given
to those who chose to answer a Chinese questionnaire. Whichever version a participant got, she
answered only one questionnaire.
3.5
Contents of the Questionnaire
The contents of the three versions were the same, with only two differences (explained in
3.5.5 and 3.5.6). Each questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first two were metaphorcomposing exercises, the third rock-naming exercises, and the fourth questions about the
participants’ personal particulars. These sections are explained below.
3.5.1 Section I: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Vehicles
According to Richards (McNeill 1987:164), “a metaphor ii consists of three elements: (i)
the topic of the metaphor, which is the concept to be presented in terms of something else; (ii) the
vehicle of the metaphor, which is the image or other idea in terms of which the topic is presented;
and (iii) the common ground of the metaphor, which is the dimension on which the topic and
vehicle are deemed to be similar. This common ground is a two-way ‘interanimation’ between
the topic and vehicle.” The exercises in section I were used to find out the common ground(s)
most frequently used by the participants, then to determine if the participants tended to focus on
certain types of relations among things in the world.
In this section, the participants were requested to compose ten novel metaphors with ten
different words given as metaphoric vehicles. The topic of each metaphor was freely determined
by the participants. They were requested not to consult anybody or any literature when
composing metaphors. This ensured that the metaphors would be original and could more
accurately reflect their metaphoric usage.
Chances that the participants might give ‘dead
i
That is, relating two different things metaphorically based on their resemblance in one or more visible
properties. See 3.6.1 for a detailed discussion on ‘image-mappings’.
ii
This research did not make a distinction between ‘metaphor’ and ‘simile’. Though the latter typically
contains the word ‘as’ or ‘like’ between the topic and the vehicle, its structure and function are similar to a
metaphor’s.
24
metaphors’ and ‘idioms’ were lower because they were discouraged to copy metaphors from
dictionaries. They were also requested to give a main reason for each metaphor to help make
clear the common ground of the metaphor and thus to avoid misinterpretation.
There were several requirements used to choose the words to be presented to the
participants, that is, the vehicles of the metaphors. They needed to denote things with adequate
visible and invisible properties. These ten vehicles were chosen to cover as many properties as
possible, namely, visible properties like shape, color, intensity of light, movement, orientation and
location, and invisible properties like character or personality, sound, smell, flavor, weight, texture
and temperature. For example, the vehicle ‘fire’ has all of the above properties except flavor
(although a fire-eater in a circus may disagree). The vehicles also needed to be understood by
both Chinese-writing participants and English-writing ones; for example, a cuisine well-known in
one cultural environment but unheard of in another would not be appropriate.
The hypotheses formulated for this section were:
(i)
A null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant mean difference in the
percentage of image-mappings between participants who learned to write Chinese first in
life or who had had more exposure to the Chinese writing system, and those who learned
to write English first in life or who had had less exposure to the Chinese writing system;
(ii)
An alternative hypothesis, which is also the main hypothesis of this thesis, saying in
opposition to the null hypothesis that there was a statistically significant mean difference
between these two groups of participants.
The Chinese-writing group was expected to have an overall higher percentage of imagemappings in their metaphors than the English-writing group. By analyzing the common grounds
of the metaphors and the properties of the metaphoric topics, the two hypotheses could be
compared.
3.5.2 Section II: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Topics
Section II resembled Section I in purpose, format and hypothesis. The main difference
was that ten topics were given and the vehicles freely determined by the participants. The
principles of choosing the topics were the same as those of choosing the ten vehicles in section I,
except that since topics do not necessarily possess visible properties, two abstract ideas intelligible
to all participants were chosen as topics, namely, ‘my examination’ and ‘my life’.
The
participants were free to make metaphorical links between the given topics and any objects, ideas
or concepts. By analyzing the properties of the vehicles and the common grounds of the
metaphors, the two hypotheses in section I could be tested statistically.
3.5.3 Section III: Naming Rocks Based on Given Descriptions and Drawings
Section III consisted of three naming exercises. The participants were requested to create
novel names, which had to be as short as possible, for three imaginary rocks from outer space
without consulting anybody or any literature, based on descriptions of the rocks and black-andwhite drawings. They were also requested to give a brief reason or reasons for each name.
Imaginary rocks were used because they could be given as many properties as possible,
like shape, size, color, intensity of light, movement, character, sound, smell, temperature and the
date of arrival from space. Rocks are common in all cultural environments, so no participants
would be likely to have problems naming them. Since the properties given to these rocks were
25
imaginary, these rocks were quite unlike other things on earth, so the names given for them could
be more original and reflect more clearly any tendency of the participants to focus on just one or a
small group of properties. These exercises could thus indirectly test the hypotheses in sections I
and II.
3.5.4 Section IV: Questions on Personal Particulars
Besides basic information like age and sex, this section specifically asked about the
language backgrounds of the participants, namely, their first language, second language(s) that
they had learned, language that they first learned to write in life, language(s) that they learned to
write before 13, and language that they read and wrote most frequently read in life and in 1996
(all questionnaires were answered from January to March, 1997). Answers to these questions
were used to group the participants for statistical tests to see what factors most affected the
results of the earlier sections.
3.5.5 The Difference between the Two Chinese Versions
The Chinese questionnaire had two versions. The given vehicles and topics in one version
each had a noun classifier, and those in the other version did not. The participants were not told
of this difference.
According to McNeill (1987:201), noun classifiers categorize how people interact with the
objects in the world. If a classifier is sufficiently transparent and its associated meaning is
projected onto reality, speakers might think there are categories of objects in reality organized in
terms of how people interact with them. For example, in Gilbertese there is a classifier ‘kai’ used
for trees, plants, land sections, and fish hooks. This category represents objects that are essential
for life. In English there is a very limited noun classification system that reveals a separation of
man from the natural world: ‘one’ is used for humans (as in someone, anyone, no one, everyone)
and ‘thing’ for natural objects (as in something, nothing, everything). If these are transparent
and projected onto reality English speakers might habitually think that two completely different
orders of beings exists: humanity and everything else. So if a language has noun classifiers, they
might provide a way to discover what Whorf calls the ‘pattern-system’ of that language.
Chinese has noun classifiers. Table 6 shows some examples and lists some nouns that
these classifiers usually modify.i Not all noun classifiers can be translated literally; they could
denote ‘a piece of, a time of, a head of, a cup of, etc’. Which one to use with a particular noun
depends on properties of the noun. Suggested reasons for grouping those nouns under their
classifiers are also given in the table.
i
The use of certain noun classifiers may be slightly different between Mandarin-speakers and Cantonesespeakers, and between written Chinese and spoken Chinese.
26
Table 6. Examples of Chinese Noun Classifiers
Classifier
Nouns Modified
Suggested Reason for Grouping
1.
chang2
Nightmare, movie, show
Events that last for a certain period of time and
have a beginning, a climax and an ending
2.
ci4 ‘time’
Chance, opportunity,
examination, accident
One-time events
3.
ge4 ‘unit, piece’
Man, ball
Complete, countable units
4.
bu4 ‘device’
Computer, telephone,
television set, camera
Electrical appliances or machines
5.
tiao2 ‘stripe’
Snake, rope, handkerchief,
waist belt, road
Line-shaped or stripe-shaped objects
6.
jian1 ‘building’
Room, house, villa, hotel,
office, factory
Buildings
Mouse, cow, rooster, dinosaur
Animals, particularly smaller animals
7.
zhi1 ‘unit’
8.
tou2 ‘head’
cow, pig, buffalo, lion
Big animalsi
9.
bei1 ‘cup’
Orange juice, ice-cream
Food contained in a cup or glass
Some noun classifiers are used for certain nouns because those nouns denote objects
which are similar in shape. Classifiers (5), (6) and (9) are good examples. In Chinese metaphors,
noun classifiers are not mandatory for the topics and vehicles. The reason for inserting noun
classifiers in one of the Chinese versions was to test if the participants would use more imagemappings in composing metaphors under the influence of these noun classifiers. The version
without noun classifiers was the control.
Tables 7 and 8 show the vehicles in section I and topics in section II, the noun classifiers
used for them, and other nouns modified by the noun classifiers.ii
All noun classifiers in Tables 7 and 8 are usually used for visible objects. Three of them
ge4 and
duo3. This shows
were used more than once in the questionnaire, namely, tou2,
that some of the given vehicles and topics are by nature related in the Chinese minds. Visual
likeness seems to be one of the criteria for grouping nouns under noun classifiers in Chinese. For
example, both ‘ghost’ and ‘that robot’ usually go with the noun classifier
ge4, possibly
3
because of their resemblance in appearance. And although
duo is primarily a classifier for
flowers, it is now also used for ‘cloud’, possibly because a cloud looks like a flower floating in
the sky. Since these noun classifiers may remind the Chinese-writing participants of the visible
i
In some literature in Hong Kong, this noun classifier is found to be used with smaller animals like
‘rooster’. However, in spoken Cantonese, this noun classifier is seldom used;
zhi1 ‘unit’ instead is used with
all animals.
ii
Since almost all Chinese-speaking participants for the research spoke Cantonese as their first language,
the choice of noun classifiers in sections I and II was based on the Cantonese usage.
27
properties of the things in the questionnaire, so that they might use more visual imagery in their
metaphors, the use of two Chinese versions was designed to test for this influence.
Table 7. Noun Classifiers Used in Section I
Given Vehicle
Classifier
1.
‘fire’
No classifier needed
2.
‘rooster’
tou2 ‘head’
3.
‘ghost’
ge4 ‘unit, piece’
Human being, cake
4.
‘ice-cream’
bei1 ‘cup’
Orange juice, tea, coffee
5.
‘computer’
bu4 ‘device’
Telephone, refrigerator, airplane, car
6.
‘sunflower’
duo3 ‘bloom’
Cloud
7.
‘paper’
zhang1 ‘sheet’
Blanket, carpet, map
8.
‘rainbow’
9.
‘lion’
tou2 ‘head’
Pig, cow, tiger, rooster
10.
‘cloud’
duo3 ‘bloom’
Flower
i
Another noun classifier
Other Nouns Modified by the Same
Classifier
i
dao4 (sometimes
‘stripe’ is used)
Pig, lion, cow, tiger
tiao2
Snake, bridge, road
zhi1 ‘unit (small animal)’ can be used for ‘rooster’.
28
Table 8. Noun Classifiers Used in Section II
Given Topic
Classifier
1.
‘my Persian cat’
No classifier neededi
2.
‘my examination’
Same as (1)
3.
‘that road’
4.
‘my life’
Same as (1)
5.
‘my husband/wife/
boyfriend/girlfriend’
Same as (1)
6.
‘that cake’
ge4 ‘unit, piece’
Telephone, human being
7.
‘that house’
zuo4
Mountain, refrigerator, cargo, car
8.
‘that robot’
ge4 ‘unit, piece’
Human being
9.
‘that plant’
ke1
Tree
10.
‘that steak’
kuai4 ‘piece, sheet’
Stone, leather, blanket, money note (in spoken
Mandarin)
tiao2 ‘stripe’
Other Nouns Modified by the Same Classifier
Snake, rainbow
3.5.6 The Difference between the Chinese and English Versions
There was one difference between the two Chinese versions and the English version. In
the Chinese versions, the discovery date of Rock #3 was given as July 1, 1997, the day China was
to take over Hong Kong from Britain. In the English version, the date was July 4, 1997, the next
Independence Day of USA. These dates were chosen because they were believed to be relevant
to most participants, so that they might use the given date to name Rock #3 if they wished to. It
was assumed that Chinese bilinguals who answered the English version would know the
significance of July 4. Both dates were presented as if they referred to past events, though they
were in fact still in the future when the questionnaires were answered.
3.6
Guidelines for Analyzing the Metaphors Composed
3.6.1 The Definition of ‘Image-mapping’
The main purpose of the questionnaire was to find out the percentages of image-mappings
(hereafter ‘IM’ or ‘IM’s’) among the Chinese-writing group and the English-writing group in
composing metaphors and naming objects. IM is a technique used in composing metaphors.
According to Lakoff (1989:90):
i
A noun classifier is optional when a possessive pronoun precedes the noun.
29
Metaphoric image-mappings work in just the same way as all other metaphoric
mappings—by mapping the structure of one domain onto the structure of another.
But the domains are mental images. Image structure includes both part-whole
structure and attribute structure. In images, part-whole relations are such as those
between a roof and a house, or between a tombstone and a grave as a whole.
Attribute structure includes such things as color, intensity of light, physical shape,
curvature, and, for events, aspects of the overall shape, such as continuous versus
discrete, open-ended versus completed, repetitive versus not repetitive, brief
versus completed. It is the existence of such structure within our conceptual
images that permits one image to be mapped onto another by virtue of their
common structure... the proliferation of detail in the images limits image-mappings
to highly specific cases. That is why we refer to them as ‘one-shot’ ... One-shot
image-mappings characteristically do not involve the mapping of ... rich knowledge
and inferential structure ... A source image [= vehicle] can be mapped onto a target
domain [= topic] which contains an image, and might also be mapped onto a target
domain in order to create an image in the target domain. For example, the phrase
‘thoughts are summer lightning’ maps our image of summer lightning onto the
domain of thought.
The definition, identification and categorization of IM’s in this paper are based on
Lakoff’s explanation of IM's above. With reference to the questionnaire, two points are worth
noting:
(i)
A given vehicle that denotes something with visible properties does not necessarily make
that metaphor an image metaphor unless a visible property of the given vehicle forms the
common ground of the metaphorical link with the topic. For example, in the metaphor
‘my husband is like a lion because he is so brave’, though the word ‘lion’ denotes an
animal with visible properties, it is an invisible property, the character, of the lion and that
of the husband that forms the common ground. Therefore, this metaphor does not have an
IM. The ten given words in section I of the questionnaire, though they all denoted visible
things, would not automatically stimulate more IM’s. The participants were free to select
any property of the visible things for mapping.
(ii)
As in the Lakoff’s ‘lightning’ example above, a given topic that denotes something
without visible properties can still be involved in IM's, so in section II of the questionnaire,
the given topics ‘my examination’ and ‘my life’ could be used to compose metaphors
that had an IM.
3.6.2 Principles for Tabulating the Metaphors
The following principles were used for tabulating the metaphors composed by the
participants:
(i)
A metaphor was counted as having an IM whenever a visible property of a vehicle was
mapped onto that of a topic, or vice versa. A metaphor like ‘ her face is (like) a sunflower
because it is round’ clearly had an IM because the visible shape of the ‘sunflower’ and
that of ‘her face’ formed the common ground. (Answers provided by the participants are
underlined in this and the following examples of metaphors or statements.) However, not
30
all cases were as clear as this one. The following metaphors composed by the participants
are some examples.
(a) ‘ A cheerful friend is (like) a sunflower because (he/she) brightens up the day.’ This metaphor
seemed to have an IM because of the word ‘brightens’ which denotes the visible brightness of
something. However, ‘brightens up the day’ is an idiom which may be replaced by ‘cheers
me up’ here. It is not the ‘brightness’ of a sunflower and that of a cheerful friend which
formed the common ground of this metaphor, but the participant’s feeling about a cheerful
friend and a sunflower, that is, both of these delighted the participant. Therefore, metaphors
like this were not counted as having an IM.
(b) ‘That cake is (like) a bank because it is so rich.’ This metaphor also seemed to have an IM,
but it was in fact not the shapes or other visible properties of ‘that cake’ and ‘a bank’ which
formed the common ground, but the ‘wealth’ of the bank and the ‘rich flavor’ of the cake
which were invisible properties. Therefore, metaphors like this were not counted as having an
IM.
(c) ‘That cake is (like) the sun because it rises.’ In this metaphor, ‘that cake’ and ‘the sun’
were linked metaphorically based on their visible movements. Therefore, metaphors like this
were counted as having an IM.
(d) ‘ My mind is (like) a computer because it is so fast.’ In this metaphor, the word ‘fast’
seemed to denote visible movements, but more specifically it denoted ‘efficient’ here. The
‘speed’ of a mind and that of a computer are invisible, unlike that of a runner. So the
metaphorical link here was not based on a visible property common to ‘my mind and ‘my
computer’, but the invisible property of ‘processing speed’ or ‘good performance’.
Metaphors like this were therefore not counted as having an IM.
Table 9 shows more examples of metaphors with an IM and Table 10 those without an
IM. The properties which formed the metaphorical links are given for reference.
Table 9 Examples of Metaphors Having an IM
Visible Property
Example Metaphor
Shape / Size
‘That road is (like) my mattress because it is bumpy.’
‘ Fog is (like) a ghost because it is transparent.’
Color
‘ A stained-glass window is (like) a rainbow because it is usually multi-colored.’
‘ Cornstarch is (like) a piece of paper because it is so white.’
Intensity of Light
‘That house is (like) a cave because it is so dark.’
‘ Your eyes are (like) fire because they burn brightly.’
Movement
‘ Gossip is (like) fire because it spreads so quickly.’
‘My Persian cat is (like) a tigress because she moves around like one.’
Orientation / Location
‘My husband is (like) my shadow because he stands by me.’
‘ Sunbathers are (like) a sunflower because they always face the sun.’
31
Table 10. Examples of Metaphors Not Having an IM
Invisible Property
Example Metaphor
Character / Personality
‘My life is (like) an adventure because it is unpredictable.’
‘ Satan is (like) a computer because he wants to annoy and deceive us.’
Sound
‘ A fire truck is (like) a rooster because its signal is so loud.’
‘ Niagara Falls are (like) a lion because they roar.’
Smell
‘That cake is (like) your socks because it does not smell good.’
‘That plant is (like) perfume because of its scent.’
Flavor
‘ My daughter is (like) an ice-cream because she is so sweet.’
‘That steak is (like) wax because it has no flavor to it.’
Weight
‘That cake is (like) a cloud because it is so light.’
‘ Daisy is (like) a piece of paper because she is light.’
Texture
‘That steak is (like) rubber because it is so tough to chew.’
‘That road is (like) glass because it is so slippery.’
Temperature
‘ Ovens are (like) fire because they get so hot.’
‘ Snow is (like) an ice-cream because it is cold.’
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
3.7
Metaphors not explained with a reason were not counted. A small number of metaphors
were explained with more than one reason. It was assumed that the main reason was
more likely to come to the participants’ minds first, so only the first reason given was
counted. In the rock-naming exercises, all reasons were counted.
Some participants, instead of composing metaphors, wrote descriptive statements about
the topics, like ‘that plant is (like) tall because it reaches the roof of the house.’
Statements like this were not counted as metaphors.
By mistake, a small number of participants used the given topics in section II as vehicles to
compose metaphors. For example, in the metaphor ‘my Persian cat is (like) my wife
because she wears mink all the time,’ the vehicle ‘my wife’ was supposed to be used to
describe ‘my Persian cat’, but it turned out that ‘my Persian cat’ was used to describe
‘my wife’. The metaphorical link went backward from the topic to the vehicle because
the image of the cat was mapped onto the wife. (This metaphor might have been more
natural if it had been ‘my wife is (like) my Persian cat because she wears mink all the
time.’) Although unnatural, metaphors like this still contained a metaphorical link and
were counted as qualified metaphors.
Statistical Analyses
3.7.1 Grouping of the Variables
The variables in the whole questionnaire were divided into two groups, group A and
group B. Data for group A had to do with personal characteristics of the participants; they were
acquired from section IV of the questionnaire on personal particulars. Those for group B had to
do with metaphor and naming, and were acquired from sections I, II and III of the questionnaire.
32
Tables 11 and 12 give the variables used in the statistical tests. The codes and abbreviated names
of the variables used in the statistical tables in the rest of this paper are given in the first column.
In Table 12, ‘visible topics’ were topics provided by the participants in section I of the
questionnaire; they denoted something which had visible properties. Likewise, ‘visible vehicles’
were vehicles provided by the participants in section II and they denoted something which had
visible properties.
3.7.2 Statistical Technique: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation
The statistical technique called Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (PPMC) was used
to measure the strength of the relationship between the variables in group A and the variables in
group B.
The Pearson correlation coefficient (represented by an ‘r’) varies between -1.00 and
+1.00. A Pearson correlation of r = 0.00 indicates that neither of two variables can be predicted
from the other by using a linear equation. A Pearson correlation of r = 1.00 indicates that one
variable can be predicted perfectly by a positive linear function of the other, and vice versa. A
value of r = -1.00 indicates the same, except that the function has a negative sign for the slope of
the line. Squaring the r-value results in the percentage of variance explained in each case (Casad
1992:135). For example, if r = 0.70, then 49% (= 0.49 times 100%) of the variance being studied
is accounted for. It means 49% of the samples have the positive correlation between the two
variables being compared. The higher the r-value, the higher percentage of the variance is
accounted for, and the fewer the errors in prediction (Isaac 1990:195).
The scores of all 335 participants were used in the PPMC’s. These 335 participants were
samples of the entire population; thus an r-value yielded from their scores was just the sample
correlation coefficient. It is impossible to compute the population correlation coefficient unless
the entire population answers the questionnaire. To determine if an r-value yielded from the 335
samples is a reliable reflection of the discreet population correlation coefficient, two hypotheses
for each statistical analysis on correlations in this paper can be made:
(i)
A null hypothesis that there was no correlation between the two variables in the entire
population;
(ii)
An alternative hypothesis that there was a correlation as indicated by the r-value.
To reject the null hypothesis so as to ‘indirectly’ accept the alternative hypothesis, briefly
speaking, the r-value in question must be greater than the ‘critical value’ given in the Table in
Appendix D. In that table, the ‘degrees of freedom’ (‘df’) is equal to the number of participants
minus 2; for this research 335 minus 2 is df333. Since df333 is closer to df300 than to df400 in
that table, the critical values shown on the row of df300 were taken for reference in most
PPMC’s in this paper. At the 5% level of significance i (hereafter ‘at 5% LS’), the critical value
of a two-variable test is 0.113, and at the 1% level (‘at 1% LS’), 0.148. All r-values in this paper
were compared with these two critical values. If the r-value was a negative number, then it must
be smaller than -0.113 at 5% LS and -0.148 at 1% LS to be considered representative of the
population correlation coefficient.
i
This generally means that the chance that the hypothesis was actually wrong is 5 %. At the 1% level of
significance, the chance is 1%. Therefore, the 1% level is a better guarantee that the hypothesis is correctly
accepted than the 5% level.
33
Table 11. Variable Group A
Code and
Abbreviated Name
Variable
Scoring Scheme or Categorization of Data
(1) Age
Age
The actual age of the participant is the score
(2) Gender
Gender
‘Male’ or ‘Female’
(3) 1st Lang.
First language
‘Chinese’, ‘English’ and ‘Korean’
(4) 2nd Lang.
Number of second
language(s) known
One point for each language
(5) 1st Written
Lang.
Written language learned
first in life
‘Chinese’, ‘English’ and ‘Korean’
(6) Lang. in Life
Language written and read
most frequently in life
One point each for writing and reading Chinese
(the highest score is two); zero for other languages
(7) Lang. in 1996
Language written and read
most frequently in 1996
Same as (6)
(8) Lang. in Life &
1996
Language written and read
most frequently in life and in
1996
Sum of the scores on (6) and (7)
(9) Education
Education
Zero points for high school or lower; one for each
bachelor’s degree, two for each master’s degree;
three for each doctoral degree
(10) Post-high
Years of post-high-school
education
One point for each year of post-high-school education;
one-twelfth for each month
(11) Art
Years of study in art or design
Same as (10)
(12) Photo
Self-reported photographic
memory
‘Yes’ or ‘No’
i
i
About 20 Koreans were among the participants. They answered the English questionnaire. All of them
lived near Baltimore, USA. Most grew up in the USA and some spoke English as their first language. Their
scores were used in most statistical tests except those involving only the Chinese-writing participants and the
English-writing ones.
34
Table 12. Variable Group B
Code and
Abbreviated Name
Variable
Scoring Scheme or Categorization of Data
(A) % of IM’s in I
Percentage of IM’s
of all metaphors
completed in section I
The sum of IM’s divided by the total number
of metaphors composed; one percent yields
one point; the highest score is 100
(B) % of IM’s in II
Percentage of IM’s
of all metaphors
completed in section II
Same as (A)
(C) % of IM’s in I
& II
Percentage of IM’s
of all metaphors
completed in sections I and II
Same as (A)
(D) % of IM’s in
Rock #1
Percentage of IM’s
of all properties
embodied by the name
for Rock #1 in section III
The sum of IM’s divided by the total number
of properties; one percent yields one point;
the highest score is 100
(E) % of IM’s in
Rock #2
Percentage of IM’s
of all properties
embodied by the name
for Rock #2 in section III
Same as (D)
(F) % of IM’s in
Rock #3
Percentage of IM’s
of all properties
embodied by the name
for Rock #3 in section III
Same as (D)
(G) % of V-topics
Percentage of ‘visible topics’
of all topics in section I
The sum of ‘visible topics’ divided
by the total number of metaphors
composed in section I; one percent yields
one point; the highest score is 100
(H) % of Vvehicles
Percentage of ‘visible
vehicles’ of all vehicles in
section II
The sum of ‘visible topics’ divided
by the total number of metaphors
composed in section I; one percent yields
one point; the highest score is 100
(I) % of V-topics
and V-vehicles
Percentage of ‘visible topics’
and ‘visible vehicles’ of all
topics and vehicles in sections
I and II
The sum of all ‘visible topics’
and ‘visible vehicles’ divided by the total number of
metaphors composed in sections I and II;
one percent yield one point;
the highest score is 100
35
3.7.3 Statistical Technique: T-test
A t-test is used to compare the means of scores on a specific variable between two groups
of participants, to find out if there is a statistically significant mean difference. For the t-tests in
this paper, the participants were broken into different pairs of groups based on the variable
concerned. The mean scores of the two groups in each pair were compared with a t-test to yield
a so-called ‘t-value’. For example, the mean scores of the participants whose first language was
Chinese were compared with those of the participants whose first language was English, and the
variable was ‘first language’. Similarly, participants who were Chinese majors at college were
compared with those who were not, and the variable used for grouping them was ‘college
major’.
As the PPMC gives an r-value, so a t-test also gives a t-value. It is computed with the
means, standard deviations and sample sizes of the two groups being compared. Since the sizes
of the Chinese-writing participants and the English-writing participants were larger than 30, it can
be assumed that (i) both sample standard deviations were close to their population standard
deviations; (ii) both population probability distributions were normal or close to normal, which
means that both curves representing the probability distributions were mound-shaped or bellshaped. In short, the larger the random sample size, the more reliably its sample mean and
standard deviation can reflect the discreet population mean and standard deviation. Standard
deviation tells about the consistency of the distribution of the variance. In the t-tests in this paper,
most standard deviations between groups were found close to each other.
As in the case of the r-value, a difference between two sample means cannot automatically
be considered statistically significant and taken as a reliable reflection of the discreet population
mean difference. The sample sizes and standard deviations of the two sample groups being
compared must also be considered. A mean difference is statistically significant when the t-value
yielded exceeds the corresponding critical values given in the table in Appendix E. Like those for
the PPMC’s, two hypotheses were made for each t-test in this paper:
(i)
A null hypothesis that there was no statistically significant difference between the two
population means;
(ii)
An alternate hypothesis that there was such a difference.
If the t-value exceeds the critical value concerned, the null hypothesis can be rejected and
the alternate hypothesis accepted. In a t-test, the df is the size of sample group one plus the size
of sample group two, then minus the number of sample groups. In most t-tests in this paper, the
df exceeded 120, so at 5% LS, the critical value must be 1.645, and at 1% LS, 2.326 (see the last
row in the table in Appendix E). If the t-value was a negative number, it must be smaller than 1.645 or -2.326. Most t-values in this paper were compared with these two critical values to see
if they were representative of the population mean differences.
3.7.4 Summary
A PPMC compares the scores on two or more variables of the same sample. An r-value is
needed to find out if there is a statistically significant correlation between two sets of scores on
two different variables within one sample group. A t-test compares the scores on one or more
variables of two different sample groups which are put together based on a specific variable
common to both. A t-value is needed to tell if a difference in the score means on a specific
variable between two groups of participants is statistically significant. Both r-value and t-value
36
should exceed their corresponding critical values at 5% LS, and even better, at 1% LS, to be
considered reliable reflections of the statistical situations in their population(s).
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1
Introduction
In this chapter, all major research findings are numbered and presented as headings of
sections. In most PPMC’s and t-tests, the scores on the variables in group A were tested with
those on the variables in group B, that is, the personal data on the participants were compared
with their scores in sections I, II and III of the questionnaire. Since the PPMC’s are more
appropriately used for testing variables which contain continuous data, only eight of the twelve
variables were tested with the PPMC’s. The other four variables which had discrete named
values in their fields, like the categories ‘male’ and ‘female’ or ‘yes’ and ‘no’, were tested with
t-tests instead.
Table 13 shows the profiles of the 335 participants based on their language background
and the version of the questionnaire they answered:
Table 13. Profiles of the 335 Participants
1st Lang.
Version of Questionnaire Answered
Chinese Major at College
1st Written Lang.i
Chinese: 226
English: 86
Korean: 23
Chinese: 134; English: 92
English: 86
English: 23
Chinese: 22; Others: 204
Others: 86
Others: 23
Total: 335
Total: 335
Total: 335
Chinese: 221; English: 5
English: 86
Korean: 19; English: 3
Malay: 1
Total: 335
4.2
Findings Related to All 335 Participants
Finding 1: Non-language-related variables were not correlated to the use of IM’s
among all 335 participants.
Table 14 shows the r-values yielded by comparing the scores on the four non-languagerelated variables in group A with those on variables (A) to (F) among all 335 participants. The
critical values for this table are 0.113 at 5% LS and 0.148 at 1% LS.
None of the r-values above exceed either critical value. Therefore, the null hypothesis that
there is no statistically significant correlation between any of these pairs of variables in the entire
population should not be rejected (or should be accepted). The participants’ percentages of IM’s
in composing metaphors and naming rocks could not be predicted by their scores on these four
non-language-related variables.
i
A participant’s first language was not necessarily the language she learned to write first in life, and vice
versa. However, to most participants, the two languages were the same.
37
38
Table 14. Correlations between Non-language-related Variables and IM’s among All 335
Participants
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in
I & II
(D) % of M’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of IM’s
in Rock #2
(F) % of IM’s
in Rock #3
(1) Age
- 0.03
- 0.04
- 0.07
0.00
- 0.11
0.00
(9) Education
- 0.04
- 0.05
- 0.07
0.00
- 0.11
0.05
(10) Post-high
0.01
0.05
0.02
- 0.02
- 0.04
0.03
(11) Art
0.06
- 0.06
- 0.01
0.09
0.06
- 0.08
Finding 2: Three language-related variables were correlated to the use of IM’s
among all 335 participants.
Table 15 shows the r-values yielded by comparing the scores on the four language-related
variables in group A with the scores on variables (A) to (F). In this and all other PPMC and t-test
tables in the rest of this paper, r-values and t-values that exceed the critical value at 5% LS are
underlined. R-values and t-values that exceed the critical value at 1% LS are double underlined.
The critical values for this table are 0.113 at 5% LS and 0.148 at 1% LS.
In Table 15, no r-value related to variable (4) exceeds either critical value. Therefore, the
participants’ percentages of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks could not be
predicted by the numbers of the second languages they knew. There were no statistically
significant correlations between variable (4) and variables (A) to (F) in the entire population.
Table 15. Correlations between Language-related Variables and IM’s among All 335
Participants
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of
M’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of IM’s
in Rock #2
(F) % of IM’s
in Rock #3
(4) 2nd Lang.
0.02
- 0.06
- 0.03
- 0.05
- 0.04
0.06
(6) Lang. in
Life
0.20
0.29
0.32
0.07
0.12
0.18
(7) Lang. in
1996
0.27
0.28
0.35
0.07
0.14
0.17
(8) Lang. in
Life & 1996
0.23
0.31
0.35
0.08
0.14
0.18
39
Five of the six r-values related to variable (6) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, four of
which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The r-values related to variables (7) and (8) are
similar to those related to variable (6). Therefore, there were statistically significant correlations
between variables (6) to (8) and variables (A) to (C), and some correlations between variables (6)
to (8) and variables (E) and (F) in the entire population. In general, the participants’ percentages
of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks could be predicted by their scores on the
language written and read most frequently in life, and the correlations were positive. The
participants’ amounts of exposure to the Chinese writing system were correlated to their
percentages of IM’s used in composing metaphors and naming rocks.
Finding 3: The male participants used significantly more IM’s in composing
metaphors than the female participants among all 335 participants.
Finding 4: A self-reported photographic memory did not make a significant
difference in the use of IM’s among all 335 participants.
In section IV of the questionnaire, the participants were asked if they believed that they
had a pictographic memory. Their answers were of interest to this research because a
pictographic memory has something to do with one’s attention to the visible properties of things.
99 participants (including 83 Chi-pts) believed that they had a photographic memory. However,
this was purely a report of a subjective belief; their photographic memories were not tested
objectively. Thus finding 4 is more suggestive than conclusive.
Table 16 shows the t-values yielded by comparing the mean scores on variables (A) to (F)
between pairs of groups who were grouped according to the non-language-related variables in
group A. The number of participants in each group is given in parentheses after the name of that
group, e.g. 192 female participants and 143 male participants were involved in these t-tests. Each
group’s mean score and standard deviation on the variable concerned are given in pairs of figures
like ‘44.68; 16.16’. The left figure in each pair is the mean score, and the right one the standard
deviation. When a t-value is a negative number like -2.14, it is because the mean score of the
group on top (e.g. ‘Female’) is lower than that of the group below it (e.g. ‘Male’). In this case,
this t-value must be smaller than - 1.645 at 5% LS and -2.326 at 1% LS to be considered
statistically significant. If it is a positive number, for tables 16 and 17, the critical values of 1.645
at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS are used.
Two t-values yielded by comparing the mean scores on variables (A) and (C) between the
two groups of variable (2) exceed the critical value at 5% LS. This indicates that there were
statistically significant differences in the mean scores between the female participants and the male
participants in composing metaphors. The male participants used significantly more IM’s in
section I than the female participants. The male participants’ overall percentage of IM’s among
all composed metaphors in sections I and II was also significantly higher than that of the female
participants. About naming rocks, none of the t-values exceeds either critical value, so there were
no significant mean differences between these two sexes. The male participants did not use
significantly more IM’s in naming rocks than the female participants.
40
Table 16. Gender and Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 335
Participants
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of M’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
(2) Gender:
Female (192)
Male (143)
41.02; 15.01
44.68; 16.16
36.90; 19.20
38.57; 21.71
39.31; 13.02
42.05; 14.53
28.36; 34.85
29.65; 36.92
51.21; 43.63
45.92; 45.16
50.65; 43.91
50.47; 46.05
T-value
- 2.14
- 0.75
- 1.81
- 0.33
1.08
0.04
(12) Photo:
No (236)
Yes (99)
42.48; 15.19
42.83; 16.60
38.36; 20.64
35.85; 19.44
40.58; 13.59
40.24; 14.13
28.93; 36.54
28.87; 33.80
47.06; 44.75
53.45; 43.09
50.00; 45.53
51.94; 43.09
T-value
- 0.19
1.03
0.21
0.01
- 1.21
- 0.36
None of the t-values related to variable (12) exceed either critical value, so there were no
significant mean differences in the scores between those who reported to possess a photographic
memory and those who reported otherwise. The former group did not use significantly more
IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks than the latter group.
4.3
Findings Related to the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts
Finding 5: Language-related variables made a significant difference in the use of
IM’s among the Chi-ptsi and the Eng-pts.
Table 17 shows the t-values yielded by comparing the mean scores on variables (A) to (F)
between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts.
Five of the six t-values related to variable (3) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, four of
which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statistically
significant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Participants
whose first language was Chinese used significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and
naming Rocks #2 and #3 than those whose first language was English.
Five of the six t-values related to variable (5) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, four of
which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS, indicating that there were statistically significant
differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Participants who learned to
write Chinese first in life used significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming Rocks
#2 and #3 than those who learned to write English first in life.
i
Hereafter, the term ‘Chi-pts’ is used to refer to either ‘the 226 participants whose first language was
Chinese’ or ‘the 221 participants who learned to write Chinese first in life’ or both. The terms ‘Eng-pts’ and
‘Kor-pts’ work similarly.
41
Table 17. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of M’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
(3) 1st Lang.:
Chinese (226)
English (86)
44.79; 15.45
38.12; 15.55
42.23; 18.72
29.43; 20.78
43.72; 13.36
33.52; 12.60
29.65; 34.39
30.62; 38.76
52.91; 42.83
41.16; 45.63
55.05; 43.98
40.50; 44.47
T-value
3.40
5.23
6.12
- 0.21
2.13
2.60
(5) 1st Written
Lang.:
Chinese (221)
English (94)
44.81; 15.37
39.32; 14.68
42.12; 18.81
29.97; 20.79
43.68; 13.40
34.80; 11.88
29.80; 34.49
28.90; 38.19
53.21; 42.63
40.32; 46.07
54.60; 43.98
42.82; 45.42
T-value
2.94
5.08
5.56
0.20
2.40
2.15
Finding 6: Language-related variables made a significant difference in the use of
IM’s among participants who had composed 20 metaphors.
Not all 335 participants had composed a total of 20 qualified metaphors in sections I and
II of the questionnaire. A total of 214 participants from among the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the
Kor-pts had composed 20 qualified metaphors. In the above t-tests, the percentages of variables
(A), (B) and (C) were calculated by dividing the number of metaphors that had an IM by the total
number of metaphors completed. The fewer the completed metaphors, the heavier each qualified
metaphor and each IM weighed. The percentages might be different if only those participants
who had completed 20 metaphorsi were counted. Table 18 shows the t-values yielded by
comparing the mean scores on variables (A) to (F) between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts who had
composed 20 metaphors. For comparison, t-values from Table 17 are given in parentheses beside
their corresponding t-values in Table 18. The critical values are 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1%
LS.
Four of the six t-values related to variable (2) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, three of
which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statistically
significant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Among all
participants who had composed 20 metaphors, those whose first language was Chinese used
significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming Rocks #2 and #3 than those whose
first language was English.
i
Eight participants whose first language was Korean and seven participants who learned to write Korean
first in life had also composed 20 metaphors. Their numbers being too small, they were not involved in this round
of t-tests.
42
Table 18. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts Who
Had Composed 20 Metaphors
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of M’s
in I & II
(D) % of M’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
(3) 1st Lang.:
Chinese (153)
English (61)
44.77; 16.47
39.02; 14.80
43.14; 17.53
26.56; 15.48
43.95; 13.57
32.79; 11.92
27.57; 31.94
26.78; 35.65
53.70; 42.47
43.55; 45.35
55.99; 43.03
41.80; 44.99
T-value
2.37 (3.40)
6.45 (5.23)
5.62 (6.12)
0.16 (- 0.21)
1.55 (2.13)
2.15 (2.60)
(5) 1st Written
Lang.:
Chinese (149)
English (65)
44.77; 16.34
39.85; 14.74
42.89; 17.64
28.00; 16.32
43.83; 13.62
33.92; 12.10
27.98; 32.08
24.62; 35.25
54.47; 42.18
41.64; 45.74
55.48; 42.91
43.85; 45.60
T-value
2.08 (2.94)
5.80 (5.08)
5.05 (5.56)
0.68 (0.20)
1.99 (2.40)
1.79 (2.15)
Five of the six t-values related to variable (5) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, two of
which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statistically
significant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Among all
participants who had composed 20 metaphors, those who learned to write Chinese first in life
used significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming Rocks #2 and #3 than those
who learned to write English first in life.
The t-values above are generally lower than those in Table 17 which were yielded from ttests involving all 335 participants. However, the general picture in Table 18 still shows that
there were statistically significant mean differences between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts.
4.4
Findings Related to the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts
Finding 7: Language-related variables made a significant difference in the use of
IM’s among the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts.
So far, all of the above PPMC’s have included participants whose first language was
Korean and those who learned to write Korean first in life. All of the above t-tests on nonlanguage-related variables have also included the Kor-pts, but t-tests on language-related
variables have not. This section discusses the mean differences among the Kor-pts, the Chi-pts
and the Eng-pts. All 335 participants, not only those who had composed 20 metaphors, were
counted in this round of t-tests. Table 19 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of the
Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts. Each t-test involved only two of the three groups. For the
t-values on rows one and two where the df’s are less than 120, the critical values are 1.658 at 5%
LS and 2.358 at 1% LS. The critical values for the rest 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
One of the twelve t-values on the first two rows exceeds the critical value at 5% LS.
Therefore, in general, there were not many statistically significant mean differences between the
43
Kor-pts and the Eng-pts. The former group did not use significantly more IM’s than the latter in
composing metaphors and naming rocks, or vice versa.
On the third and fourth rows, seven of the twelve t-values exceed the critical value at 5%
LS, five of which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that the Chi-pts used
significantly more IM’s than the Kor-pts in composing metaphors, but not in naming rocks.
Table 19. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the
Kor-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of
IM’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
(3) 1st Lang.:
Korean (23)
English (86)
37.57; 12.75
38.12; 15.55
22.91; 17.11
29.43; 20.78
34.66; 9.51
33.52; 12.60
15.22; 35.15
30.62; 38.76
39.13; 49.90
41.16; 45.63
44.20; 48.62
40.50; 44.47
T-value
- 0.16
- 1.38
0.40
- 1.72
- 0.19
0.35
(5) 1st Written
Lang.:
Korean (19)
English (94)
34.56; 16.40
39.32; 14.68
24.53; 17.48
29.97; 20.79
33.02; 12.97
34.80; 11.88
20.18; 37.92
28.90; 38.19
42.11; 50.73
40.32; 46.07
39.47; 45.88
42.82; 45.42
T-value
- 1.26
- 1.07
- 0.58
0.91
- 0.15
0.29
(3) 1st Lang.:
Korean (23)
Chinese (226)
37.57; 12.75
44.79; 15.45
22.91; 17.11
42.23; 18.72
34.66; 9.51
43.72; 13.36
15.22; 35.15
29.65; 34.39
39.13; 49.90
52.91; 42.83
44.20; 48.62
55.05; 43.98
T-value
- 2.17
- 4.75
- 3.17
- 1.91
- 1.45
- 1.12
(5) 1st Written
Lang.:
Korean (19)
Chinese (221)
34.56; 16.40
44.81; 15.37
24.53; 17.48
42.12; 18.81
33.02; 12.97
43.68; 13.40
20.18; 37.92
29.80; 34.49
42.11; 50.73
53.21; 42.63
39.47; 45.88
54.60; 43.98
T-value
- 2.78
- 3.08
- 3.33
- 1.16
- 1.07
- 1.43
4.5
Findings Primarily Related to the 226 Chi-pts
Finding 8: The written language used in answering the questionnaire made a
significant difference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
Among the 226 Chi-pts, 134 answered the Chinese questionnaire and wrote their answers
in traditional complex characters, and 92 answered the English questionnaire and wrote their
answers in English letters. Table 20 shows the t-values yielded by comparing their scores on
variables (A) to (F). The Eng-pts and the Kor-pts were not involved in these t-tests. The critical
values are 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
44
Table 20. Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of
IM’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Answered in:
Chinese (134)
English (92)
47.26; 15.85
41.21; 14.18
44.63; 17.96
38.73; 19.34
46.18; 13.15
40.14; 12.90
32.54; 32.75
25.45; 36.43
59.27; 42.34
43.66; 42.07
60.88; 41.76
46.56; 45.93
T-value
2.94
2.35
3.42
1.53
2.73
2.43
Five of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were
statistically significant mean differences in the scores of these two groups. Those who composed
the metaphors and named the rocks in Chinese used significantly more IM’s than those who did
so in English. Though all 226 participants spoke Chinese as their first language, the language in
which they thought and wrote made a significant difference in their use of IM’s in composing
metaphors and naming rocks.
Finding 9: The written language used in answering the questionnaire made a
significant difference in the use of IM’s among all 335 participants.
Among all 335 participants, 134 answered the Chinese questionnaire and wrote their
answers in traditional complex characters, and 201 answered the English questionnaire and wrote
their answers in English letters. The latter included all Eng-pts and Kor-pts. Table 21 shows the
t-values yielded by comparing their scores on variables (A) to (F). The critical values are 1.645 at
5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
Table 21. Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 335 Participants
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in
I & II
(D) % of
IM’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Answered in:
Chinese (134)
English (201)
47.26; 15.85
39 47; 14.65
44.63; 17.96
32.94; 20.45
46.18; 13.15
36.68; 12.78
32.54; 32.75
26.49; 37.42
59.27; 42.34
42.07; 44.35
60.88; 41.76
43.70; 45.48
T-value
4.61
5.38
6.59
1.52
3.54
3.50
The results are similar to those in Table 20. Compared to all participants who answered
the English questionnaire, the 134 Chi-pts who answered the Chinese questionnaire used
significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks.
45
Finding 10: More exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant
difference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
Besides the language in which the participants thought and wrote at the time of composing
the metaphors and naming the three rocks, the written language they exposed to most frequently
in life and in 1996 could also be a factor for their higher percentages of IM’s in composing
metaphors and naming rocks. Table 22 shows the average scores of the above two groups and all
225 Chi-pts on variables (6), (7) and (8). A higher score suggests more exposure to the Chinese
writing system.
Table 22. Exposure To the Chinese Writing System and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
Version of Questionnaire
Answered
No. of
Chi-pts
(6) Lang. in Life
(out of 2 points)
(7) Lang. in 1996
(out of 2 points)
(8) Lang. in Life and
1996 (out of 4 points)
Chinese
English
134
92
1.82
1.06
1.51
0.56
3.33
1.62
Total
226
1.48
1.08
2.56
Chi-pts who answered the Chinese questionnaire scored significantly higher than Chi-pts
who answered the English questionnaire on all three variables. Their scores were also high above
the average scores of all 226 Chi-pts. On the contrary, the scores of those who answered the
English questionnaire were far below the average scores. This indicates that on average those
who answered the Chinese questionnaire also had significantly more exposure to the Chinese
writing system than other Chi-pts, thus resulting in their higher percentages of IM’s in composing
metaphors and naming rocks.
Finding 11: Chinese majors in university used significantly more IM’s than nonChinese majors among all 226 Chi-pts.
Twenty-two of the 226 Chi-pts majored in the Chinese Language and/or Chinese
Literature in Hong Kong University or the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They scored a
perfect four on variable (8) ‘language written and read mostly frequently in life and in 1996’. i
Therefore, they generally had more exposure to the Chinese writing system than most other Chipts. The nature of their Chinese studies also required them to read and write the characters more
often than all other Chi-pts did. Table 23 shows t-values yielded by comparing their scores on
variables (A) to (F) (the ‘C-M’ group) with those of the following three groups of Chi-pts:
(i)
All other Chi-pts, including those who answered the Chinese questionnaire and the English
questionnaire (‘All-C’); the critical values are 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS
(ii)
All other Chi-pts who answered the Chinese questionnaire only (‘C-C’); the critical
values are 1.856 at 5% LS and 2.358 at 1% LS
(iii)
All other Chi-pts who answered the English questionnaire only (‘C-E’); the critical values
are 1.856 at 5% and 2.358 at 1% LS
i
Eighty-seven of the Chi-pts who did not major in Chinese at college also scored a perfect four on variable
(8) ‘language written and read most frequently in life and in 1996’.
46
In test set (i) in Table 23, two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The
C-M group used significantly more IM’s than the All-C group in composing metaphors, but not
in naming rocks.
In test set (ii), two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS, one of which also
exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. In general, the C-M group used significantly more IM’s than
the C-C group in composing metaphors, but not in naming rocks.
Table 23. Chinese Majors in University and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of IM’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Test Set (i):
All-C (204)
C-M (22)
44.25; 15.33
49.80; 15.93
41.06; 18.81
53.03; 14.14
42.89; 13.31
51.47; 11.40
28.88; 34.83
36.82; 29.73
52.25; 43.00
59.09; 41.70
54.45; 44.18
60.61; 42.58
T-value
- 1.61
- 2.89
- 2.91
- 1.03
- 0.71
- 0.62
Test Set (ii):
C-C (112)
C-M (22)
46.76; 15.85
49.80; 15.93
42.98; 18.22
53.03; 14.14
45.14; 13.27
51.47; 11.40
31.70; 33.37
36.82; 29.73
59.30; 42.65
59.09; 41.70
60.94; 41.79
60.61; 42.58
T-value
- 0.82
- 2.44
- 2.09
- 0.67
0.02
0.03
Test Set (iii):
C-E (92)
C-M (22)
41.21; 14.18
49.80; 15.93
38.73; 19.34
53.03; 14.14
40.14; 12.90
51.47; 11.40
25.45; 36.43
36.82; 29.73
43.66; 42.07
59.09; 41.70
46.56; 45.93
60.61; 42.58
T-value
- 2.49
- 3.26
- 3.78
- 1.36
- 1.55
- 1.31
In test set (iii), three of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The C-M
group used significantly more IM’s than the C-E group in composing metaphors, but not in
naming rocks.
It was assumed that the C-M group had more exposure to the Chinese writing system than
the C-C group and the C-C group in turn had more exposure to the Chinese writing system than
the C-E group (at least when answering their questionnaires, the C-C group had to think and
write in Chinese). Therefore, it was expected that there would be more significant mean
differences between the C-M group and the C-E group than between the C-M group and the C-C
group. This was verified by the t-values in test sets (ii) and (iii) above. Besides this, since the AllC group included participants who answered the English questionnaire and used significantly
fewer IM’s than other Chi-pts (see finding 8), more significant mean differences between the C-M
group and the All-C group than between the C-M group and the C-C group were expected. This
was also verified by the t-values in test sets (i) and (ii).
47
Finding 12: More exposure to the Chinese writing system in life made a significant
difference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
After comparing the Chinese majors with other Chi-pts, finding 10 shows that more
exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant difference in the use of IM’s among all
Chi-pts in composing metaphors. Another set of t-tests were used to verify finding 10 from a
different angle—by comparing groups of Chi-pts who scored differently on variable (6) ‘language
written and read mostly frequently in life’.
The scores of the 226 Chi-pts on variable (6) ranged from zero to two points. Those who
scored zero (the ‘0-group’) had the least exposure to the Chinese writing system although they
could read and write the characters. Those who scored one point (the ‘1-group’) either read or
wrote the characters most frequently in life. Their exposure to the Chinese writing system was
therefore supposed to be higher than the 0-group. Those who scored two points (the ‘2-group’)
both read and wrote the characters most frequently in life, so their exposure to the Chinese
writing system must have been higher than the 0-group and the 1-group. Table 24 shows the tvalues yielded by comparing the scores of these three groups on variables (A) to (F). For test set
(i), the critical values are 1.671 at 5% LS and 2.390 at 1% LS, and for test sets (ii) and (iii), 1.645
at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
Table 24. Exposure to Chinese in Life and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of IM’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Test Set (i):
0-group (28)
1-group (36)
40.28; 16.14
46.65; 15.73
36.67; 17.18
44.77; 19.07
38.83; 11.83
45.53; 14.37
22.62; 27.58
26.16; 36.14
55.95; 39.60
41.20; 42.44
47.02; 43.05
41.67; 44.99
T-value
- 1.59
- 1.76
- 1.99
- 0.43
1.42
0.48
Test Set (ii):
1-group (36)
2-group(162)
46.65; 15.73
45.16; 15.21
44.77; 19.07
42.62; 18.82
45.53; 14.37
44.16; 13.26
26.16; 36.14
31.65; 35.02
41.20; 42.44
54.99; 43.27
41.67; 44.99
59.41; 43.38
T-value
0.53
0.62
0.55
- 0.85
- 1.73
- 2.21
Test Set (iii):
0-group (28)
2-group(162)
40.28; 16.14
45.16; 15.21
36.67; 17.18
42.62; 18.82
38.83; 11.83
44.16; 13.26
22.62; 27.58
31.65; 35.02
55.95; 39.60
54.99; 43.27
47.02; 43.05
59.41; 43.38
T-value
- 1.55
- 1.31
- 1.99
- 1.30
0.11
- 1.40
In test set (i), two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS. In general, the 1group used significantly more IM’s than the 0-group in composing metaphors, but not in naming
rocks.
48
In test set (ii), two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS. In general, the
2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 1-group in naming rocks, but not in composing
metaphors.
In test set (iii), one of the six t-values exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. On the whole,
the 2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 0-group in composing metaphors, but not in
naming rocks.
Although these were some significant differences, there were not as many as in the next
finding.
Finding 13: More exposure to the Chinese writing system in 1996 made a significant
difference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
Another set of t-tests were also used to verify finding 10 from a different angle—by
comparing groups of Chi-pts who scored differently on variable (7) ‘language written and read
most frequently in 1996’.
Again, the 226 Chi-pts were broken into 0-group, 1-group and 2-group according to their
scores on variable (7). Table 25 shows the t-values yielded by comparing the scores of these
three groups on variables (A) to (F). For test set (iv), the critical values are 1.658 at 5% LS and
2.358 at 1% LS, and for test sets (v) and (vi), 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
In test set (iv) in Table 25, two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS. In
general, the 1-group used significantly more IM’s than the 0-group in composing metaphors, but
not in naming rocks.
Table 25. Exposure to Chinese in 1996 and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of IM’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Test Set (iv):
0-group (74)
1-group (41)
39.90; 14.01
45.16; 17.04
38.40; 19.43
42.83; 18.43
39.45; 13.03
43.83; 14.59
26.35; 32.47
28.05; 36.60
50.00; 41.75
43.09; 42.98
48.65; 45.06
49.19; 46.84
T-value
- 1.78
- 1.17
- 1.66
- 0.26
0.84
- 0.06
Test Set (v):
1-group (41)
2-group(111)
45.16; 17.04
47.92; 15.04
42.83; 18.43
44.56; 17.71
43.83; 14.59
46.53; 12.44
28.05; 36.60
32.45; 34.88
43.09; 42.98
58.48; 43.02
49.19; 46.84
61.49; 41.58
T-value
- 0.97
- 0.52
- 1.13
- 0.68
- 1.96
- 1.56
Test Set (vi):
0-group (74)
2-group(111)
39.90; 14.01
47.92; 15.04
38.40; 19.43
44.56; 17.71
39.45; 13.03
46.53; 12.44
26.35; 32.47
32.45; 34.88
50.00; 41.75
58.48; 43.02
48.65; 45.06
61.49; 41.58
T-value
- 3.65
- 2.23
- 3.72
- 1.20
- 1.33
- 1.99
49
In test set (v), one of the six t-values exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. In general, the
2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 1-group in naming Rock #2, but not in composing
metaphors.
In test set (vi), four of the six t-values exceeds the critical value at 5% LS, three of which
also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The 2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 0group in composing metaphors and in naming Rock #3.
Finding 14: More recent exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant
difference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
It was assumed that since the year of 1996 was more recent to the time of the research,
the effect of the Chinese writing system on the Chi-pts might be more noticeable and significant.
There might also be more mean differences among the three groups. Comparing the t-values in
Tables 24 and 25, more mean differences were found in the latter. Three of the t-values in test set
(vi) also exceed the critical value at the 1% LS. The ‘gaps’ between the 0-group and the 2groups in test set (vi) were more significant than those in test set (iii). This indicates that the
recency of the Chi-pts’ exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant difference in
their use of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks.
The ‘gaps’ between the 1-group and the 2-group were not significant in either Table 24
or Table 25. This suggests that either reading or writing the characters more frequently in life or
in 1996 had a similar effect on the Chi-pts. As long as the Chi-pts read or wrote, or both read and
wrote the characters, whether mostly frequently in life or in 1996, their use of IM’s would be
influenced by their exposure to this writing system to a very similar degree. And if they neither
read nor wrote the characters, whether mostly frequently in life or in 1996, the influence of this
writing system on them would be comparatively less, thus resulting in more mean differences
between this group and the other two groups, as shown in the t-values in test sets (i), (iii), (iv)
and (vi).
Finding 15: The presence of noun classifiers in the Chinese questionnaire did not
made a significant difference in the use of IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts who
answered the Chinese questionnaire.
As explained in 3.5.5, the Chinese questionnaire had two versions, one with noun
classifiers and the other without. Seventy-two of the 134 Chi-pts answered the one with noun
classifiers, and 62 answered the one without. Table 26 shows the t-values yielded by comparing
their scores on variables (A) to (F). The critical values are 1.658 at 5% LS and 2.358 at 1% LS.
‘Class’ stands for ‘the group who answered the version with noun classifiers’, and ‘No-Class’
for ‘the group who answered the version without noun classifiers’.
No t-value exceeds either critical value. Therefore, to those Chi-pts who answered the
Chinese, the presence of noun classifiers in their questionnaires did not make a significant
difference in their use of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks. The overall higher
percentage of IM’s in their metaphors must be attributed to their influence by their writing system
as a whole.
50
Table 26. Noun Classifiers and IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts Who Answered the Chinese
Questionnaire
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of IM’s
in Rock #1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
Class (72)
No-class (62)
49.18; 15.24
45.02; 16.36
45.60; 18.54
43.51; 17.35
47.80; 13.17
44.30; 12.99
33.49; 33.15
31.42; 32.51
54.98; 42.41
64.25; 42.04
63.43; 41.64
57.93; 42.05
T-value
1.52
0.67
1.54
0.36
- 1.27
0.76
Finding 16: The male Chi-pts used significantly more IM’s than the female Chi-pts
among all 226 Chi-pts.
Table 27 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of the male Chi-pts with those of
the female Chi-pts on variables (A) to (F). These t-tests involved all Chi-pts, including those who
answered the English questionnaire. The critical values are 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
Table 27. Gender and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of
IM’s in I
(B) % of
IM’s in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I &
II
(D) % of
IM’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of
IM’s in Rock
#2
(F) % of
IM’s in Rock
#3
(2) Gender:
Female (138)
Male (88)
43.22; 14.58
47.26; 16.50
41.30; 17.71
43.68; 20.28
42.60; 12.07
45.49; 15.07
31.85; 34.95
26.21; 33.41
55.86; 41.92
48.30; 44.06
55.25; 43.01
54.74; 45.69
T-value
- 1.93
- 0.90
- 1.59
1.20
1.30
0.08
One of the six t-values of variable (2) exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. The male Chipts used significantly more IM’s than the female Chi-pts in composing metaphors in section I of
the questionnaire, but not in section II, nor in naming rocks.
With reference to Table 16, among all 335 participants, the male participants also used
more IM’s than the female participants in composing metaphors, but not in naming rocks.
Therefore, it is believed that gender cannot account for the Chi-pts’ higher percentages of IM’s
in their metaphors and rocks’ names, because this factor affected all 335 participants, regardless
of their language background.
Finding 17: A self-reported photographic memory made a significant difference in
the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.
As mentioned in finding 4, among the 99 Chi-pts who reported having a photographic
memory, 83 were the Chi-pts. While only 11.6% of the Eng-pts reported having a photographic
memory, as many as 36.7% of the Chi-pts reported having one. Although the participants’ selfreported photographic memory might not be tested scientifically, the higher percentage of the
51
Chi-pts suggests that many Chi-pts did perceive themselves as visually-oriented in some ways.
The real reason for this being unknown, this might be attributed to their frequent exposure to
pictographic elements in their writing system. However, a self-reported photographic memory
(even if they did have one) might not necessarily lead to a higher percentage of IM's in composing
metaphors because a photographic memory is primarily about memorizing things, not relating
different things in this world. Therefore, it was possible that such a memory had no influence on
their use of IM's in composing metaphors.
Like finding 4, finding 17 is suggestive, not
conclusive.
Table 28 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of the 83 Chi-pts who reported
having a photographic memory with those who reported otherwise. These t-tests involved all Chipts, including those who answered the English questionnaire. The critical values are 1.645 at 5%
LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.
Table 28. Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts
(A) % of IM’s
in I
(B) % of IM’s
in II
(C) % of
IM’s in I & II
(D) % of
IM’s in Rock
#1
(E) % of IM’s
in Rock #2
(F) % of IM’s
in Rock #3
(12) Photo:
No (143)
Yes (83)
44.98; 15.22
44.47; 15.92
44.61; 18.65
38.13; 18.24
44.87; 13.31
41.74; 13.28
29.21; 35.05
30.42; 33.42
52.33; 42.87
53.92; 42.99
55.24; 44.82
54.72; 42.75
T-value
0.24
2.54
1.70
- 0.26
- 0.27
0.09
Two of the six t-values of variable (12) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, one of which
also exceeds the critical value at 1% LS.
Therefore, Chi-pts who reported not having a
photographic memory used significantly more IM’s than those who reported otherwise, in
composing metaphors, but not in naming rocks.
With reference to Table 16, the 99 participants who reported not having a photographic
memory did not use significantly more IM’s than those who reported otherwise, in composing
metaphors and naming rocks. In the case of the Chi-pts, a self-reported photographic memory
did not appear to increase the participants’ frequencies of using IM’s in composing metaphors,
because those who believed they had such a photographic memory actually used fewer IM’s in
their metaphors than those who believed they had no photographic memory. Therefore, the
higher percentages of IM's among the Chi-pts should be attributed to their writing system.
4.6
IM's and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’
Finding 18: The Chi-pts used significantly more ‘visible topics’ and ‘visible
vehicles’ than the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts, among all 335 participants.
In section I of the questionnaire, the vehicles were given and the participants provided the
topics when composing their metaphors. In section II, the topics were given and the participants
provided the vehicles for their metaphors.
To find out if the Chi-pts had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ and ‘visible topics’
than the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts in the research, a set of t-tests was used to compare the scores
52
of these three language groups on variables (G), (H) and (I). The 335 participants were grouped
according to variables (3) and (5), so there are six sets of t-values in Table 29. However, the tvalues related to the Kor-pts should be taken for reference only because their sample sizes were
below 30 and much smaller than those of the other two groups. The critical values for rows (a)
and (d) are 1.658 at 5% LS and 2.358 at 1% LS, and for the rest, 1.645 at 5% LS and 2.326 at
1% LS.
Table 29. Language-related Variables and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ among All 335
Participants
(G) % of V-topics in I
(H) % of V-vehicles in II
(I) % of V-topics
& V-vehicles
(3) 1st Lang.:
a.
English (86)
Korean (23)
- 1.25
1.81
- 0.79
b.
Chinese (226)
Korean (23)
- 0.49
3.08
0.16
c.
Chinese (226)
English (86)
1.90
1.11
1.97
(5) 1st Written Lang.:
d.
English (94)
Korean (19)
0.13
1.52
0.21
e.
Chinese (221)
Korean (19)
0.83
2.85
1.12
f.
Chinese (221)
English (94)
1.25
1.44
1.62
One t-value on row (a) exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. Participants whose first
language was English had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ in section II of the questionnaire
than those whose first language was Korean.
Two of the six t-values on rows (b) and (c) exceed the critical values at 5% LS, one of
which also exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. Participants whose first language was Chinese
had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ in section II than those whose first language was Korean;
they also had significantly more ‘visible topics’ in section I and more ‘visible topics and vehicles’
in both sections than the Eng-pts.
One t-value on row (e) exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. Participants who learned to
write Chinese first in life had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ in section II than those who
learned to write Korean first in life.
Finding 19: The percentages of visible topics and vehicles among the 226 Chi-pts
were correlated to their percentages of IM’s in composing metaphors.
53
Finding 18 reflects that the Chi-pts had a higher tendency of using more visible things than
invisible concepts or ideas for their topics or vehicles in composing metaphors. A set of PPMC’s
were used to find out if this was correlated to their use of IM’s in composing metaphors. Table
30 shows the r-values between variables (A) to (C) and variables (G) to (I) among the Chi-pts
(left three columns; the critical values are 0.195 at 5% LS and 0.254 at 1% LS) and Eng-pts (right
three columns; the critical values are 0.205 at 5% LS and 0.267 at 1% LS).
In Table 30, on the Chi-pts’ side, seven of the nine r-values exceed the critical value at
5% LS, six of which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. Therefore, these two sets of
variables were correlated in the Chinese-related population.
Table 30. Correlations between ‘Visible Vehicles and Topics’ and IM’s among All 226
Chi-pts
Chi-pts
Chi-pts
Chi-pts
Eng-pts
Eng-pts
Eng-pts
(G) % of Vtopics
in I
(H) % of
V-vehicles
in II
(I) % of
V-topics &
V-vehicles
(G) % of
V-topics in I
(H) % of
V-vehicles
in II
(I) % of
V-topics
& V-vehicles
(A) % of IM’s
in I
0.33
0.12
0.33
-0.11
-0.04
-0.07
(B) % of IM’s
in II
0.09
0.43
0.25
0.26
0.04
0.31
(C) % of IM’s
in I & II
0.27
0.28
0.36
0.03
-0.06
0.06
On the Eng-pts’ side, two r-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS, one of which also
exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. In general, the correlations between these two sets of
variables in the English-related population were not as significant as those in the Chinese-related
population.
According to Isaac (1990:196), “correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Two
variables simply may be correlated with a third variable”. Therefore, the higher percentages of
‘visible vehicles and topics’ of variables (G) to (I) did not necessarily lead to the higher
percentages of IM’s of variables (A) to (C). If not, this kind of causation would have happened
to both the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts in the research. It is evident that the Eng-pts did not use
more or fewer IM’s according to the percentages of their ‘visible vehicles and topics’.
Therefore, among the Chi-pts, these two sets of variables may be correlated to a third variable,
which may be their exposure to the Chinese writing system.
4.7
Summary
To summarize, non-language-related variables except the gender of the participants were
not found to be correlated to the percentages of IM’s among all 335 participants. The three
language-related variables (6), (7) and (8) were found to have made a significant difference in the
use of IM’s not only among all 335 pts, but also among the 226 Chi-pts themselves. More
54
exposure and more recent exposure to the Chinese writing system, as well as the use of the
Chinese writing system to answer the questionnaires, were found to have resulted in more
frequent use of IM’s in composing metaphors among the Chi-pts. The Chi-pts not only used
significantly more IM’s than the Eng-pts, but also had significantly more ‘visible topics and
vehicles’ than the Eng-pts in composing metaphors. On the whole, the language background of
the participants stood out among other variables as the main factor for the participants’ use of
IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks. So there are reasons to believe that the Chinese
writing system was a crucial factor for the Chi-pts’ more frequent use of IM’s in composing
metaphors and naming rocks.
CHAPTER 5
FURTHER DISCUSSION
5.1
Introduction
This chapter discusses a few concerns about the research findings in chapter 4, especially
those related to the Chi-pts. Data presented in this chapter were based on the participants’
answers to the questionnaires.
5.2
Concern 1: IM's in Naming Rocks among the Chi-pts
The findings in chapter 4 showed that the Chi-pts used significantly more IM’s than
the Eng-pts in composing metaphors, but they did not always use more IM’s in
naming rocks. Why?
The reason may be that the Chi-pts incorporated more properties in their rocks’ names
than the Eng-pts did, thus lowering their average percentages of IM's in naming rocks.
After naming the rocks, the participants gave one or more reasons for each name. A
name might therefore embody more than one property of the rock. For example, a participant
might name a rock ‘Fire’ because of its color, temperature, changing form and being
untouchable—two visible and two invisible properties—which resembled those properties of fire.
Figure 3 shows the average numbers of properties embodied by the three rocks’ names given by
different groups of participants. In each set of columns, the leftmost column represents the
overall number of properties embodied by the names given by all 335 participants; the next
column, by the Chi-pts who majored in Chinese at college, then by all Chi-pts, by all Eng-pts, and
by all Kor-Pts respectively.
2.5
2
A ll-A v .
1.5
Chi-M-A v .
Chin-A v .
Eng-A v .
1
Kor-Av
0.5
0
Rock1
Rock2
Rock3
Figure 3. Average Numbers of Properties Embodied by the Rocks’ Names
Chinese majors incorporated comparatively more properties in their rocks’ names than
other groups did. The Chi-pts as a whole also incorporated more properties in their rocks’ names
than the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts did. The numbers of properties in the names given by the Chipts were above the average numbers in the names given by all 335 participants.
55
56
These findings suggest that the participants’ exposure to the Chinese writing system was
correlated to the numbers of properties embodied by their rocks’ name. The reason for this is
unknown, but these findings might help explain why the Chi-pts did not always use significantly
more IM's in naming rocks than the Eng-pts did.
Although the Chi-pts did not always use more IM's in naming rocks, they did not use
significantly fewer, either. Therefore, they were not less visually-oriented than the Eng-pts and
Kor-pts when naming the rocks.
5.3
Concern 2: Influence from Living Environments
Did the participants’ frequent exposure or proximity to certain things (other than
their writing systems) in their living environments predispose them to certain
metaphorical links?
Steak is leather/shoe.
House is box.
Chi-pts
Eng-pts
Cake is sponge.
Life is roller coaster.
Exam. is war.
Exam. is torture.
Cotton is cloud.
Man is lion.
Life is rainbow.
Baby/Child is paper.
W oman is sunflower.
Brain is computer.
Snow is ice-cream.
Someone is ghost.
Clock is rooster.
Sun is fire.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Figure 4. Differences in Metaphorical Links Between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts
Figure 4 shows the percentagesi of some metaphors found among the Chi-pts and Engpts. Those metaphors did not necessarily have an IM. The bars stand for the percentages of
participants in that group. In each pair of bars, the upper one represents the Chi-pts, and the
lower one the Eng-pts. ‘Man’ in the chart is a category which includes any male person like
‘father’ and ‘husband’. Likewise, ‘woman’ includes any female person like ‘mother’ and
i
These percentages were calculated by dividing the number of participants having composed the metaphor
shown on the y-axis by the total number of participants of that group who had composed a metaphor for that
specific topic or vehicle. The number of the Chinese-related participants ranged from 197 to 225, and that of the
English-related participants from 70 to 84.
57
‘girlfriend’, and ‘someone’ includes any living person like ‘she’, ‘my supervisor’ and ‘that
policeman’.
From Figure 4, some metaphorical links were significantly more popular in one language
group than in the other. For example, the metaphor ‘sun is fire’ was clearly more popular among
the Chi-pts than the Eng-pts, but the metaphor ‘life is a roller coaster’ was clearly more popular
among the Eng-pts than the Chi-pts.
The 20 given words in sections I and II of the questionnaire denoted things or concepts
common to both language groups. For example, the sun and fire are common to both language
groups, and yet the metaphor ‘ sun is (like) fire’ was more popular among the Chi-pts than the
Eng-pts. More than 40 Chi-pts (approx. 21%) linked ‘sun’ with ‘fire’. It is unlikely that these
Chi-pts had had more exposure to the sun and fire than others. Similarly, steak and leather are
also common to both groups, but the metaphor ‘that steak is (like) leather’ was far more popular
among the Eng-pts than the Chi-pts. Instead, more Chi-pts linked ‘steak’ with ‘stone’ or
‘wooden block’.
In addition, ‘roller coaster’ was a game frequently advertised by the Ocean Park of Hong
Kong on television and in newspapers, so most Chi-pts who lived in Hong Kong must have had
great exposure to the images of roller coasters. The land area of Hong Kong is only 415 square
miles (1067 square km) (McHenry 1992:37), and there are amusement parks with roller coasters
in and close to Hong Kong. Therefore, most Chi-pts lived near actual roller coasters. However,
only a few Chi-pts used ‘roller coaster’ for metaphorical links, and whenever they did, they
linked it with ‘my life’. On the contrary, snow is rare in Hong Kong, a tropical land, yet four
Chi-pts linked ‘ice-cream’ with ‘snowman’, but no Eng-pts did so. Although most Eng-pts
(and Kor-pts) lived in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Washington, USA, where snow is more
common, they did not use ‘snow’ for metaphorical links more often than the Chi-pts. Therefore,
the participants’ frequent exposure and proximity to certain things or images of those things in
their living environments did not automatically stimulate them to make certain metaphorical links.
If the living environments did not stimulate the participants to make certain metaphorical
links, it is unlikely that the living environments directly influenced the participants’ use of IM's in
composing metaphors.
It was instead found that metaphorical links and the use of IM's were influenced by
metaphorical links and IM's found in idioms and colloquial expressions. Table 31 shows a
comparison between some novel metaphors composed by the Chi-pts and some Chinese idioms or
colloquial Cantonese expressions which involve similar metaphorical links. (Cantonese is the
dialect spoken by all but one or two Chi-pts.)
The common grounds of the five novel metaphors in Table 31 (not given in the table) were
identical with those of the metaphorical links in their corresponding idioms or colloquial
Cantonese expressions; metaphors (1) and (2) are good examples. Except metaphor (4), all
involved an IM. It is likely that those novel metaphors were ‘copied’ from idioms and colloquial
expressions in the Chinese language, whether spoken or written.
In other words, the
metaphorical links and IM's in one’s language affect one’s use of novel metaphorical links and
IM's.
58
Table 31. Novel Metaphors and Metaphorical Links in Idioms and Colloquial Cantonese
Expressions
Novel Metaphors by the Chi-pts
Idioms or Colloquial Cantonese Expressions
(literally translated)
1.
2.
1.
‘ I am (like) a cloud.’
‘ My thought is (like) a cloud.’
2.
‘I am a piece of cloud.’ This describes
someone’s being absent-minded or puzzled;
‘A headful of fog and water.’ This also
describes someone’s being puzzled or lost.
3.
‘My Persian cat is (like) a pig.’
3.
‘(Someone) lies idle like a dead pig and does
not move even when kicked.’ This describes a
person’s unwillingness to move or to work, but
getting in the way of others who are working.
4.
‘My examination is (like) a nightmare.’
4.
‘(Something) is a nightmare.’ This usually
describes a bad experience, not something that
looks scary.
5.
‘That road is (like) an intestine.’
5.
‘A small gut path.’ This idiom describes a long and
winding path.
5.4
Concern 3: Influence from ‘Visible Topics and Vehicle’
Did higher percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles’ automatically lead to higher
percentages of IM's in composing metaphors among the participants, particularly
the Chi-pts?
Figure 5 gives a general picture of the percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles’
provided by the participants,i and the percentages of IM’s in the twenty metaphors composed by
the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts. The three lines on the higher level stand for the
percentages of visible topics and vehicles provided by the three language groups. Those on the
lower level stand for their percentages of IM’s. (A1) to (A10) represent the ten metaphors in
section I of the questionnaire, and (B1) to (B10) for those in section II.
i
That is, the number of visible vehicles or topics given by the participants for metaphorical links divided
by the total number of metaphors composed. The total number of metaphors composed varied from metaphor to
metaphor, and from group to group.
59
100%
90%
80%
%-TYPE-CHIN
70%
%-IM-CHIN
60%
%-TYPE-ENG
50%
%-IM-ENG
40%
%-TYPE-KOR
30%
%-IM-KOR
20%
10%
B.10
B.9
B.8
B.7
B.6
B.5
B.4
B.3
B.2
B.1
A.10
A.9
A.8
A.7
A.6
A.5
A.4
A.3
A.2
A.1
0%
Figure 5. Relation between the Use of IM’s and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’
From Figure 5, higher percentages of visible topics and vehicles did not automatically lead
to higher percentages of IM’s in any group, as evident in metaphors (A2), (A5), (A9), (B5) and
(B6). Similarly, lower percentages of visible topics or vehicles did not automatically lead to
lower percentages of IM’s in any group. This is evident in metaphors (A3), (A8), (A10) and
(B3). These findings confirm that the participants’ use of IM's was not significantly influenced by
the visible properties of the things denoted by the visible topics and vehicles which the participants
provided. Therefore, the Chi-pts’ higher percentages of IM's in their metaphors were not direct
results of their percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles.’ Rather, the former could be direct
results of their exposure to the Chinese writing system.
5.3
Conclusion
The participants’ metaphorical links and their use of IM's in composing metaphors were
not influenced by their frequent exposure and proximity to certain things in their living
environments. Nor did higher percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles’ lead to higher
percentages of IM's in their metaphors. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the Chinese
writing system was a major factor for the Chi-pts’ higher percentages of IM's in composing
metaphors.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
From chapter 2, we have seen that the Chinese writing is by nature more pictographic than
the English one, and that graphic techniques are more popular for teaching the Chinese writing
system than the English one. The research findings in chapter 4 show that the Chi-pts in general
used significantly more image-mappings than the Eng-pts in composing metaphors and
occasionally in naming rocks, and that the Chi-pts’ amount and recency of exposure to the
Chinese writing system were correlated to their use of image-mappings in composing metaphors.
Chapter 5 shows that participants’ frequent exposure and proximity to certain things in their
living environments and higher percentages of visible topics and vehicles did not automatically
stimulate them to make certain metaphorical links and to use more image-mappings. Thus,
considering all of the above observations, there is reason to believe that the pictographic nature of
the Chinese writing system predisposes its users to more frequent use of image-mappings in
metaphors and names. The general hypothesis stated in chapter 1 that there is a correlation
between a writing system and the pattern of language use of its users is thus supported by this
study.
It is good to consider what further studies might provide evidence on this issue. One
might compare the use of image-mappings between those who use traditional Chinese characters
and those who use simplified Chinese characters (e.g. comparing language use in Taiwan and
Singapore). Or, one might compare the language use of native Japanese speakers and native
English speakers. In both studies, if the basic hypothesis is correct, the former group could use
more image-mappings than the latter. Further, if there is a dialect of Chinese that has an
alphabetic writing system, it would be worth comparing the language use of its users with that of
the traditional Chinese character users to see if the latter will use more image-mappings.
60
APPENDICES
61
APPENDIX A
TRADITIONAL COMPLEX CHARACTERS, THEIR EARLIEST VERSIONSi
AND MODERN SIMPLIFIED VERSIONS USED IN THE PRCii
The Earliest Oracle
Bone Inscription
Having Been
Deciphered (c. 16th11th century BC)
Bronze Inscription
(c. 11th century –
265 BC)
Traditional
Complex
Character
(Currently Used
in Taiwan and
Hong Kong)
Simplified
Version
(Currently Used
in the PRC)
Gloss (modern)
‘end’
‘car’
‘luxurious’
‘phoenix’
‘old, used’
‘sunshine’
‘different, unique’
‘music’
‘to handle’
‘to refine (metal)’
i
The inscribed forms of these characters are taken from Li 1993. After 265 BC, these characters (and
most others) continued to change in form till they became like those shown in the third and fourth columns (the
characters here were typed in the ‘FMing S5’ font and the ‘JSong SG’ font respectively; they may appear slightly
different in different fonts).
ii
The simplification of the characters in the PRC began in the 1950’s (Li 1993:3).
62
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE DICTIONARY INDEXES BY STROKES
SAMPLE 1
SAMPLE 2
Sample 1: Page one of the index by strokes in a dictionary of traditional Chinese
characters.i This page begins a list of ‘characters having obscure radical’.
Sample 2: Page one of the index by strokes in Li 1995. The characters in this index are
simplified characters used in the PRC.
i
and
. 1967.
.
:
.
63
APPENDIX C
ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE (PAGE 1)
TAKE A BREAK AND STRETCH YOUR IMAGINATION
My name is Felix Ma. I am pursuing a Master's degree at the University of North Dakota, USA. My research paper is on the use of metaphor in the Chinese
language and the English language. You are cordially invited to participate in this research. Please kindly finish all exercises in this questionnaire. If you would
like to have an abstract of my paper months later, please give me your name and address at the end of this questionnaire. Thank you very much!
EXERCISE 1: Without consulting anybody or any literature, please compose novel metaphors with the things below, then briefly explain your metaphors. A
metaphor is a figure of speech in which one thing is spoken of as if it were another. For example, if the thing is ‘a shoe’, your metaphor can be ‘I am (like) a
shoe!’ Then your reason: ‘Because I am not 'durable'. I can be worn out easily.’ The topics of your metaphors can be ANYTHING (people, names, objects,
ideas, concepts, feelings, etc.), but please give only one major reason for each metaphor. Thanks!
1) _________________ is/are (like) fire because ______________________________________________________________________________
2) _________________ is (like) a rooster because ____________________________________________________________________________
3) _________________ is (like) a ghost because _____________________________________________________________________________
4) _________________ is (like) an ice-cream because _________________________________________________________________________
5) _________________ is (like) a computer because __________________________________________________________________________
6) _________________ is (like) a sunflower because __________________________________________________________________________
7) _________________ is (like) a piece of paper because ______________________________________________________________________
8) _________________ is (like) a rainbow because ____________________________________________________________________________
9) _________________ is (like) a lion because _______________________________________________________________________________
10) _________________ is (like) a cloud because ______________________________________________________________________________
EXERCISE 2: Now that you have warmed up! Have more fun composing novel metaphors for the topics below. Imagine that you know them well, then describe
each with only one other thing (ANYTHING!). Give your reasons as well. For example, if the topic is ‘that baby’, you may say, ‘That baby is (like) cornstarch
because its skin is so white!’ or ‘That baby is (like) a nightmare because they both wake me up in the middle of the night!’ Thanks!
1) My Persian cat is (like) ___________________ because _____________________________________________________________________
2) My examination is (like)
because _______________________________________________________________________
3) That road is (like) _______________________ because ______________________________________________________________________
4) My life is (like) _________________________ because ______________________________________________________________________
5) That cake is (like) _______________________because ______________________________________________________________________
64
65
ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE (PAGE 2)
6) My boyfriend/ girlfriend/ husband/ wife is (like) _______________________because ________________________________________________
7) That house is (like) _____________________ because_______________________________________________________________________
8) That robot is (like) ______________________ because_______________________________________________________________________
9) That plant is (like) _______________________because______________________________________________________________________
10) That steak is (like) ______________________ because______________________________________________________________________
EXERCISE 3: Three rocks from the outer space fell on your front yard. You want to display them in your house, but you have to name them first. Your guests
may ask you to explain the names of the rocks, so prepare the reasons for the names. Keep the names as short as possible.
Rock #1: 2 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot. Weighs 200 pounds. Emits heat from the center all the time (the heat can be
felt within 2 feet). Generates some electricity, so it should not be touched by bare hand. Bright red in color.
Has a sour smell. It continuously makes a ‘bee’ sound. ______________ (your name or nickname) found it
on your birthday.
Name for Rock #1: __________________________________________________
Reason for this name: ________________________________________________
Rock #2: 1 foot x 1 foot x 1 foot. Weighs 1 pound. Every 60 minutes, it will slightly vibrate for 10 seconds. 100%
black with hundreds of pores. When pressed, its shape will change accordingly and slowly. Can be touched by
bare hand. Has a sweet smell. When it vibrates, it makes a creaky sound.
_______________ (your name or nickname) found it on the first day of your new job.
Name for Rock #2: __________________________________________________
Reason for this name: _______________________________________________
Rock #3: (Your photo shop ruined the picture of this rock, but you know what this rock looks like.)
3 feet x 1 foot x 1 foot. As heavy as 500 pounds. It looks like a banana. Translucent surface with yellow fluid in
the middle. Hundreds of stagnant air bubbles in the fluid. Like a chameleon's skin, the color of the fluid will change from yellow to red, then to brown, then to
black, as the outside temperature drops. When heated, the rock expands slightly as a balloon is inflated. It smells like coffee. It usually makes a sheep-like
sound, but when heated, a cow-like sound. Your name is Rocky. You found it on July 4, 1997.
Name for Rock #3: ___________________________________________________
Reason for this name: _________________________________________________
66
ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE (PAGE 3)
Please answer the following:
1) Your age is ______ .
2) Your gender
Male
Female
3) Your first language is ____________________ .
4) Do you know any other language(s)? If any, it is/ they are _______________________________________ .
5) What language did you learn to write first? It was ____________________ .
6) Did you learn to write any other language(s) before age 13? If any, it was/ they were __________________.
7) a. Of all languages you know, which do you read most frequently in your life? It is _________________.
b. Of all languages you know, which did you read most frequently in 1996? It was _________________.
c. Of all languages you know, which do you write most frequently in your life? It is _________________.
d. Of all languages you know, which did you write most frequently in 1996? It was _________________.
8) a. If you are currently a high school student, you are in Grade/ Form ________ ?
b. If you are currently an undergraduate or graduate student, what is/are your major(s)? ________________________.
What year are you now in? _____________________ .
c. What university degree(s) or diploma(s) have you completed? If any, it is/ they are _______________________.
d. How many years of schooling have you had so far after high school / secondary school? In total, __________ years.
9) Have you taken any course in Art or Design? If any, how many years / months have you studied: _____________.
10) Do you think you have photographic memory? ____________.
When you have answered all questions of this questionnaire, please return it to the one who gave it to you by hand, or send it to him/her by mail:
(address) ______________________________________________
Tel: (
)____________ before (date) ________________.
Thanks for your participation!
****************************************************************************************************************************
If you want an abstract of my paper, please give me your name and address here:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX D
CRITICAL VALUES OF PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONi
df
5% Level of Significance
1% Level of Significance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.92692
0.9500
0.878
0.811
0.754
0.707
0.666
0.632
0.602
0.93877
0.9200
0.9587
0.9172
0.875
0.834
0.798
0.765
0.735
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0.576
0.553
0.532
0.514
0.497
0.482
0.468
0.456
0.444
0.433
0.423
0.708
0.684
0.661
0.641
0.623
0.606
0.590
0.575
0.561
0.549
0.537
25
30
35
40
45
0.381
0.349
0.325
0.304
0.288
0.487
0.449
0.418
0.393
0.372
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.273
0.250
0.232
0.217
0.205
0.195
0.354
0.325
0.302
0.283
0.267
0.254
i
Source of data: Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics, 390.
Ohio: The Chemical Rubber Co.
67
APPENDIX E
CRITICAL VALUES OF STUDENT’S T-DISTRIBUTIONi
df
5% Level of
Significance
1% level of
Significance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6.314
2.920
2.353
2.132
2.015
1.943
1.895
1.860
1.833
1.812
31.821
6.965
4.541
3.747
3.365
3.143
2.998
2.896
2.821
2.764
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1.796
1.782
1.771
1.761
1.753
1.746
1.740
1.734
1.729
1.725
2.718
2.681
2.650
2.624
2.602
2.583
2.567
2.552
2.539
2.528
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1.721
1.717
1.714
1.711
1.708
1.706
1.703
1.701
1.699
1.697
2.518
2.508
2.500
2.492
2.485
2.479
2.473
2.467
2.462
2.457
40
60
120
> 120
1.684
1.671
1.658
1.645
2.423
2.390
2.358
2.326
i
Source of data: Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics, 283.
Ohio: The Chemical Rubber Co.
68
APPENDIX F
SCORES OF THE 335 PARTICIPANTS ON VARIABLE GROUPS A & Bi
COUNT
FM.
CL.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#A%
#B%
#C%
#D%
#E%
#F%
#G%
#H%
#I%
R1
R2
R3
N.001
Eng.
N/A
37
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
60.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
0.00
20.00
1
0
0
N.002
Eng.
N/A
39
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
50.00
40.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.003
Eng.
N/A
52
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
60.00
50.00
55.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
90.00
55.00
2
1
1
N.004
Eng.
N/A
51
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60.00
30.00
45.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
2
1
N.005
Eng.
N/A
39
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
50.00
28.57
41.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
100.00
58.82
0
0
0
N.006
Eng.
N/A
42
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
0
N.007
Eng.
N/A
44
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
60.00
10.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
90.00
50.00
2
0
0
N.008
Eng.
N/A
41
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
60.00
20.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
20.00
100.00
60.00
2
1
2
N.009
Eng.
N/A
43
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
40.00
80.00
60.00
1
1
3
N.010
Eng.
N/A
24
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.011
Eng.
N/A
42
F
E
4
E
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
50.00
10.00
30.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
30.00
90.00
60.00
1
1
2
N.012
Eng.
N/A
16
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.00
30.00
30.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
60.00
80.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.013
Eng.
N/A
31
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
70.00
20.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
3
1
N.014
Eng.
N/A
46
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
3
9
0
0
37.50
40.00
38.89
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
90.00
83.33
1
1
2
N.015
Eng.
N/A
34
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
5.5
0
0
20.00
10.00
15.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.016
Eng.
N/A
50
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
6
6
0
0
70.00
50.00
60.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
60.00
70.00
65.00
1
1
2
N.017
Eng.
N/A
45
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.50
100.00
41.67
50.00
100.00
0.00
87.50
100.00
91.67
2
1
1
N.018
Eng.
N/A
38
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
40.00
44.44
42.11
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
88.89
84.21
1
1
1
N.019
Eng.
N/A
36
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
40.00
10.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
90.00
70.00
2
1
1
N.020
Eng.
N/A
37
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
50.00
33.33
80.00
70.00
75.00
1
2
3
N.021
Eng.
N/A
41
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
4
8
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.00
80.00
60.00
1
1
1
N.022
Eng.
N/A
32
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.023
Eng.
N/A
40
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
3
22
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.024
Eng.
N/A
42
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
3
7
0
0
40.00
10.00
25.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.025
Eng.
N/A
38
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
3
0.25
0
0.00
100.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
83.33
100.00
87.50
0
0
0
N.026
Eng.
N/A
39
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
42.86
11.11
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.43
77.78
75.00
1
1
1
N.027
Eng.
N/A
37
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
44.44
33.33
41.67
100.00
0.00
0.00
77.78
100.00
83.33
1
0
0
N.028
Eng.
N/A
29
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
40.00
60.00
50.00
1
1
1
N.029
Eng.
N/A
34
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20.00
30.00
25.00
66.67
100.00
100.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
3
2
2
N.030
Eng.
N/A
40
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
20.00
50.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.031
Eng.
N/A
32
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
4
1
0
10.00
0.00
6.67
0.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
80.00
66.67
1
1
1
N.032
Eng.
N/A
29
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
30.00
0.00
15.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
2
1
1
N.033
Eng.
N/A
28
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
5.5
0
0
28.57
16.67
23.08
0.00
0.00
50.00
57.14
83.33
69.23
2
0
2
N.034
Eng.
N/A
32
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
30.00
0.00
15.00
33.33
33.33
100.00
40.00
80.00
60.00
3
3
2
N.035
Eng.
N/A
60
M
E
5
E
0
0
0
3
15
0
0
30.00
20.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
1
2
2
N.036
Eng.
N/A
69
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
40.00
25.00
35.71
33.33
33.33
33.33
30.00
100.00
50.00
3
3
3
N.037
Eng.
N/A
58
M
E
3
E
0
0
0
4
6
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
2
1
2
N.038
Eng.
N/A
42
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.039
Eng.
N/A
26
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
6
0
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
66.67
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
3
1
N.040
Eng.
N/A
55
F
E
6
E
0
0
0
3
12
2
0
40.00
10.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.041
Eng.
N/A
49
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
3
18
0
0
30.00
20.00
25.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
1
2
N.042
Eng.
N/A
57
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
6
1
0
60.00
40.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
100.00
85.00
2
1
1
N.043
Eng.
N/A
41
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
16
3
0
20.00
30.00
25.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.044
Eng.
N/A
26
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
40.00
55.56
47.37
33.33
100.00
100.00
60.00
55.56
57.89
3
2
2
N.045
Eng.
N/A
47
M
E
6
E
0
0
0
3
8
0
0
60.00
30.00
45.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
80.00
70.00
2
1
1
N.046
Eng.
N/A
44
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
2
5
0.16
0
40.00
22.22
31.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
77.78
63.16
1
1
1
N.047
Eng.
N/A
33
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
6
1
0
30.00
10.00
20.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
30.00
100.00
65.00
1
2
1
N.048
Eng.
N/A
58
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
30.00
10.00
20.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
100.00
85.00
2
1
0
N.049
Eng.
N/A
61
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
3
12
0
0
30.00
20.00
25.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
80.00
1
2
1
N.050
Eng.
N/A
57
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
40.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
5
1
N.051
Eng.
N/A
35
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.052
Eng.
N/A
44
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.053
Eng.
N/A
54
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
33.33
20.00
25.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
66.67
80.00
75.00
1
0
0
N.054
Eng.
N/A
39
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
33.33
50.00
42.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
75.00
57.14
0
0
0
N.055
Eng.
N/A
55
F
E
0
E
0
0
0
1
1.5
0
0
50.00
22.22
36.84
33.33
100.00
0.00
70.00
100.00
84.21
3
1
0
N.056
Eng.
N/A
71
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
6
11
0
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.057
Eng.
N/A
26
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
70.00
30.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
2
1
N.058
Eng.
N/A
34
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.059
Eng.
N/A
30
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
3
N.060
Eng.
N/A
30
F
E
1
MAL
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
1
2
1
N.061
Eng.
N/A
30
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
2
1
N.062
Eng.
N/A
35
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
2
N.063
Eng.
N/A
33
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
2
6
3
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
1
2
1
N.064
Eng.
N/A
41
M
E
0
E
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
30.00
10.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
1
1
1
N.065
Eng.
N/A
18
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
2
1
1
i
Column ‘FM’ shows whether the version of questionnaire was English (‘Eng.’) or Chinese (‘Chin.’).
‘CL’ shows whether the Chinese version had noun classifiers (‘Yes’) or not (‘No’). #1 to #12 show the scores
on the twelve variables in group A, and #A% to #I% the nine variables in group B (the figures are percentages).
R1, R2 and R3 show the actual numbers of properties embodied in the rocks’ names. Rows N.314 to N.335 show
scores of the 22 Chi-pts who majored in Chinese at college.
69
70
N.066
Eng.
N/A
23
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
1
5.5
0
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.067
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
3
E
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
93.33
1
1
1
N.068
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
66.67
25.00
47.06
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
75.00
88.24
1
1
1
N.069
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.00
42.86
33.33
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
85.71
93.33
1
1
1
N.070
Eng.
N/A
16
M
K/E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
80.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.071
Eng.
N/A
15
F
K/E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
80.00
70.00
75.00
2
1
2
N.072
Eng.
N/A
16
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
40.00
80.00
60.00
1
1
1
N.073
Eng.
N/A
16
M
E
5
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
60.00
44.44
52.63
50.00
50.00
50.00
90.00
88.89
89.47
2
2
2
N.074
Eng.
N/A
16
F
E
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60.00
20.00
40.00
33.33
0.00
50.00
30.00
90.00
60.00
3
2
2
N.075
Eng.
N/A
16
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10.00
10.00
10.00
33.33
100.00
66.67
40.00
60.00
50.00
3
2
3
N.076
Eng.
N/A
17
F
E
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
2
N.077
Eng.
N/A
29
M
E
3
K
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
30.00
90.00
60.00
2
2
1
N.078
Eng.
N/A
17
M
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.44
14.29
31.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
88.89
71.43
81.25
0
0
0
N.079
Eng.
N/A
18
M
K/E
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.00
44.44
36.84
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
88.89
89.47
1
1
1
N.080
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
3
E
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
30.00
10.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.081
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.00
100.00
54.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.91
0
0
0
N.082
Eng.
N/A
16
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
1
1
N.083
Eng.
N/A
15
F
K/E
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.00
30.00
20.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.084
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.00
10.00
20.00
33.33
50.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
85.00
3
2
1
N.085
Eng.
N/A
15
F
K
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
20.00
33.33
0.00
100.00
66.67
80.00
100.00
86.67
1
1
3
N.086
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
40.00
66.67
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
83.33
87.50
1
1
1
N.087
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
50.00
40.00
45.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.088
Eng.
N/A
15
M
E
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
30.00
28.57
29.41
0.00
0.00
50.00
70.00
57.14
64.71
3
1
2
N.089
Eng.
N/A
14
M
E
3
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.00
10.00
25.00
33.33
66.67
50.00
50.00
60.00
55.00
3
3
2
N.090
Eng.
N/A
22
M
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
4
0.33
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.091
Eng.
N/A
19
F
E
1
E
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.092
Eng.
N/A
24
F
E
2
E
0
0
0
1
5
1
0
20.00
10.00
15.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
30.00
90.00
60.00
2
2
1
N.093
Eng.
N/A
50
F
C
2
C
0
0
0
3
6
3
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
2
2
1
N.094
Eng.
N/A
32
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
33.33
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
3
3
1
N.095
Eng.
N/A
31
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
8
0
0
50.00
40.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
1
1
N.096
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
30.00
50.00
38.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
75.00
88.89
4
3
1
N.097
Eng.
N/A
27
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
2
2
N.098
Eng.
N/A
32
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
5
1
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
2
1
N.099
Eng.
N/A
33
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
4
0
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
90.00
80.00
85.00
2
2
2
N.100
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
42.86
0.00
37.50
50.00
100.00
100.00
71.43
0.00
62.50
2
1
1
N.101
Eng.
N/A
37
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
4
0
1
30.00
40.00
35.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
2
1
1
N.102
Eng.
N/A
26
F
C
3
C
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
70.00
40.00
55.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
90.00
70.00
80.00
2
2
2
N.103
Eng.
N/A
32
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
7
0
1
80.00
20.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
2
1
1
N.104
Eng.
N/A
29
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
2
1
N.105
Eng.
N/A
26
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
2
7
0
1
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.106
Eng.
N/A
24
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.107
Eng.
N/A
20
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
60.00
60.00
60.00
33.33
66.67
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
3
3
2
N.108
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
2
C
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
33.33
50.00
41.18
0.00
100.00
0.00
77.78
87.50
82.35
1
1
1
N.109
Eng.
N/A
27
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
7
0
1
20.00
11.11
15.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
88.89
78.95
1
1
1
N.110
Eng.
N/A
25
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
2
4.5
0
0
20.00
20.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
2
4
1
N.111
Eng.
N/A
30
F
C
2
C
0
0
0
0
5
0.25
0
30.00
20.00
25.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
60.00
80.00
70.00
2
1
1
N.112
Eng.
N/A
35
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
15
0
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
1
1
2
N.113
Eng.
N/A
36
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
4
0
1
25.00
30.00
28.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
100.00
89.00
1
2
1
N.114
Eng.
N/A
37
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
20.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
100.00
85.00
2
1
1
N.115
Eng.
N/A
37
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
60.00
70.00
65.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
2
1
N.116
Eng.
N/A
17
M
K
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
0
40.00
0.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
0.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.117
Eng.
N/A
18
M
K
3
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.50
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.50
100.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.118
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
40.00
12.50
27.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
87.50
77.78
1
1
1
N.119
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
50.00
10.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
3
N.120
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
55.56
0.00
55.56
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.121
Eng.
N/A
17
F
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
0
2
N.122
Eng.
N/A
16
M
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60.00
33.33
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
93.75
1
1
1
N.123
Eng.
N/A
17
M
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
44.44
0.00
40.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
88.89
100.00
90.00
1
1
0
N.124
Eng.
N/A
44
M
K
3
K
0
0
0
12
20
0
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.125
Eng.
N/A
16
M
K
2
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.00
25.00
38.89
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
1
1
N.126
Eng.
N/A
15
M
K
2
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
40.00
0.00
36.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
81.82
1
1
1
N.127
Eng.
N/A
16
M
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
40.00
33.33
36.84
0.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
88.89
68.42
1
1
1
N.128
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
30.00
33.33
31.25
100.00
100.00
0.00
40.00
66.67
50.00
1
1
1
N.129
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
1
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.130
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.67
25.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
0
N.131
Eng.
N/A
16
F
K
1
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.00
0.00
16.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
0.00
66.67
0
0
0
N.132
Eng.
N/A
17
M
K
2
K
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
20.00
50.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
28.57
0
0
0
N.133
Eng.
N/A
31
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
1
1
1
N.134
Eng.
N/A
24
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
6
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
1
2
2
N.135
Eng.
N/A
40
F
C
1
C
1
0
1
0
18
0
0
40.00
62.50
50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
60.00
100.00
77.78
2
2
1
N.136
Eng.
N/A
37
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
2
9
0
1
20.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
60.00
65.00
1
1
1
N.137
Eng.
N/A
23
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
3
0
1
30.00
40.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.138
Eng.
N/A
24
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
4
1.3
0
10.00
40.00
25.00
33.33
0.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
3
1
1
N.139
Eng.
N/A
23
F
C
3
E
2
0
2
1
3
0
0
20.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.140
Eng.
N/A
33
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
4
0
0
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
66.67
100.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
3
1
N.141
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
40.00
50.00
44.44
0.00
0.00
50.00
70.00
87.50
77.78
1
1
2
N.142
Eng.
N/A
38
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
2
5
0
0
20.00
10.00
15.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.143
Eng.
N/A
21
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
40.00
25.00
33.33
50.00
0.00
50.00
60.00
62.50
61.11
2
1
2
N.144
Eng.
N/A
33
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
3
3
0
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.145
Eng.
N/A
43
M
C
2
C
2
0
2
4
6
0
1
20.00
10.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
0
0
0
N.146
Eng.
N/A
48
F
C
2
C
1
2
3
4
5
0
0
44.44
40.00
42.11
100.00
50.00
50.00
77.78
90.00
84.21
1
2
2
71
N.147
Eng.
N/A
21
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
1.5
9
1
50.00
25.00
38.89
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
75.00
83.33
1
1
1
N.148
Eng.
N/A
21
M
C
1
C
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
50.00
62.50
55.56
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
87.50
77.78
1
1
1
N.149
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
2
0
0
42.86
50.00
46.15
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
66.67
84.62
1
1
1
N.150
Eng.
N/A
22
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
25.00
40.00
30.77
0.00
0.00
100.00
37.50
80.00
53.85
2
1
1
N.151
Eng.
N/A
30
F
C
1
C
1
0
1
2
6
2
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
70.00
100.00
85.00
2
2
1
N.152
Eng.
N/A
33
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
4
0
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.153
Eng.
N/A
29
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
2
7.5
0
0
20.00
30.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
1
1
2
N.154
Eng.
N/A
22
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
3.5
0
1
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
2
2
1
N.155
Eng.
N/A
19
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
0.5
0
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
2
2
2
N.156
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
10
0
0
80.00
100.00
81.82
100.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
90.91
1
1
1
N.157
Eng.
N/A
21
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
77.78
75.00
76.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.56
75.00
61.54
1
1
1
N.158
Eng.
N/A
20
F
C
2
C
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
33.33
37.50
35.71
0.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
87.50
92.86
1
2
1
N.159
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
66.67
100.00
83.33
1
1
0
N.160
Eng.
N/A
28
M
C
1
C
1
0
1
3
8
0.5
0
50.00
33.33
42.11
100.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
88.89
89.47
1
1
0
N.161
Eng.
N/A
35
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
4
3
1
40.00
44.44
42.11
50.00
50.00
0.00
70.00
88.89
78.95
2
2
1
N.162
Eng.
N/A
32
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
3
7
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.163
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
3
0
1
40.00
10.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
70.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.164
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
18
3
0
60.00
50.00
55.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
87.50
94.44
1
1
2
N.165
Eng.
N/A
34
F
C
2
C
1
0
1
5
7
0
0
30.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.166
Eng.
N/A
28
F
C
1
C
1
0
1
1
3
0
1
50.00
60.00
56.25
50.00
100.00
0.00
83.33
90.00
87.50
2
2
1
N.167
Eng.
N/A
25
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
2
5
0
1
50.00
0.00
26.32
0.00
50.00
50.00
70.00
100.00
84.21
1
2
2
N.168
Eng.
N/A
35
F
C
1
C
1
0
1
1
5
0
1
40.00
50.00
45.00
25.00
33.33
0.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
4
3
1
N.169
Eng.
N/A
29
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
6
2
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.170
Eng.
N/A
28
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
5
0
0
30.00
60.00
45.00
0.00
33.33
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
3
2
N.171
Eng.
N/A
48
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
2
8
0
1
60.00
60.00
60.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
1
1
N.172
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
2
E
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
1
1
N.173
Eng.
N/A
47
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
2
10
0
0
55.56
42.86
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.22
100.00
56.25
3
1
1
N.174
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
2
0
0
40.00
14.29
29.41
50.00
50.00
0.00
90.00
57.14
76.47
2
2
2
N.175
Eng.
N/A
37
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
3
5
0
1
30.00
40.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
2
1
1
N.176
Eng.
N/A
40
F
C
2
C
2
1
3
1
3
0.25
1
30.00
80.00
55.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.177
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
2
C
2
1
3
0
2
0
1
55.56
30.00
42.11
100.00
0.00
100.00
88.89
100.00
94.74
1
2
1
N.178
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
2
1
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
33.33
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
3
1
N.179
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
50.00
33.33
46.15
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
66.67
84.62
1
1
1
N.180
Eng.
N/A
35
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
3.5
0
0
40.00
44.44
42.11
0.00
100.00
0.00
20.00
88.89
52.63
1
1
1
N.181
Eng.
N/A
26
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
3
0
0
37.50
20.00
27.78
100.00
50.00
0.00
62.50
100.00
83.33
1
2
1
N.182
Eng.
N/A
19
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
0.5
0
0
30.00
40.00
35.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
30.00
80.00
55.00
2
1
2
N.183
Eng.
N/A
19
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
0.5
0
0
20.00
50.00
35.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
80.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.184
Eng.
N/A
33
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
5
10
0
1
30.00
20.00
25.00
50.00
66.67
50.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
3
2
N.185
Eng.
N/A
23
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
3
0
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
2
2
2
N.186
Eng.
N/A
30
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
1
30.00
12.50
22.22
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
62.50
66.67
1
1
2
N.187
Eng.
N/A
34
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
5
5
1
60.00
20.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.188
Eng.
N/A
20
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
0
50.00
60.00
55.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.189
Eng.
N/A
38
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
33.33
100.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
1
3
1
N.190
Eng.
N/A
23
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
1
1
2
N.191
Eng.
N/A
23
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
44.44
50.00
47.37
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.192
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
1
40.00
10.00
25.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.193
Eng.
N/A
49
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
3
5
0
1
60.00
60.00
60.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.194
Eng.
N/A
21
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
0
1.5
0
0
40.00
50.00
44.44
50.00
100.00
66.67
70.00
87.50
77.78
2
1
3
N.195
Eng.
N/A
24
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
2
0.25
0
40.00
62.50
50.00
50.00
100.00
66.67
90.00
100.00
94.44
2
2
3
N.196
Eng.
N/A
20
M
C
2
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
0
40.00
50.00
44.44
0.00
50.00
100.00
60.00
100.00
77.78
1
2
1
N.197
Eng.
N/A
21
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
55.56
20.00
42.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
77.78
80.00
78.57
1
1
1
N.198
Eng.
N/A
20
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
44.44
0.00
25.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
88.89
85.71
87.50
1
1
0
N.199
Eng.
N/A
47
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
2
N.200
Eng.
N/A
19
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
3
0
33.33
66.67
44.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
66.67
88.89
1
1
0
N.201
Eng.
N/A
34
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
1
60.00
50.00
55.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
1
2
1
N.202
Chin.
NO
23
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
5
1
0
80.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
2
2
2
N.203
Chin.
NO
22
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
33.33
100.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
3
3
1
N.204
Chin.
NO
19
M
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
5
0.5
0
30.00
55.56
42.11
25.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
88.89
94.74
4
2
1
N.205
Chin.
NO
20
F
C
2
C
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.206
Chin.
NO
35
M
C
5
C
0
0
0
5
14
0
0
30.00
60.00
40.00
25.00
66.67
66.67
100.00
100.00
100.00
4
3
3
N.207
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
1
C
0
0
0
0
0.5
11.5
0
50.00
20.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
2
N.208
Chin.
YES
24
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
3
2
1
30.00
60.00
45.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
30.00
100.00
65.00
1
1
1
N.209
Chin.
YES
27
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
15
0
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
60.00
35.00
1
1
2
N.210
Chin.
YES
21
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
4.5
0
0
30.00
60.00
45.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
2
1
N.211
Chin.
NO
20
M
C
1
C
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
60.00
80.00
70.00
0.00
100.00
66.67
60.00
100.00
80.00
1
1
3
N.212
Chin.
NO
21
M
C
1
C
1
0
1
0
2.5
2
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.213
Chin.
YES
21
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
3
0.16
1
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
33.33
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
2
3
2
N.214
Chin.
NO
20
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
2
0
1
60.00
30.00
45.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
2
2
2
N.215
Chin.
YES
26
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
4
0
0
60.00
62.50
61.11
50.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
1
2
N.216
Chin.
YES
20
F
C
1
C
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
50.00
40.00
45.00
33.33
66.67
66.67
80.00
70.00
75.00
3
3
3
N.217
Chin.
YES
20
F
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
3.5
0
1
50.00
30.00
40.00
33.33
100.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
3
1
2
N.218
Chin.
YES
20
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
50.00
60.00
55.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
2
1
N.219
Chin.
YES
17
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
1
2
1
N.220
Chin.
YES
40
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
22.22
10.00
15.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.56
50.00
52.63
1
1
1
N.221
Chin.
YES
14
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
40.00
11.11
26.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
77.78
73.68
1
2
1
N.222
Chin.
NO
24
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
3
3
0
40.00
22.22
31.58
100.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
88.89
73.68
1
1
1
N.223
Chin.
NO
37
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
0
0
1
0.00
20.00
10.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.224
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
2
0
50.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
33.33
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
3
2
N.225
Chin.
YES
25
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
6
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
25.00
50.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
4
2
2
N.226
Chin.
YES
23
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
4
10
1
33.33
55.56
44.44
50.00
0.00
0.00
44.44
66.67
55.56
2
1
1
N.227
Chin.
YES
30
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
7
3
0
40.00
30.00
35.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
40.00
60.00
50.00
2
2
1
72
N.228
Chin.
YES
20
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
5
0
0
50.00
80.00
65.00
50.00
33.33
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
3
2
N.229
Chin.
NO
34
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
3
6
0
0
40.00
60.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
1
1
N.230
Chin.
YES
23
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
50.00
44.44
47.37
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
77.78
89.47
2
1
1
N.231
Chin.
YES
23
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
5
0
1
50.00
0.00
35.71
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
92.86
1
1
1
N.232
Chin.
NO
22
M
C
1
C
1
0
1
0
4
9
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.233
Chin.
YES
30
M
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
2
0
0
50.00
55.56
52.63
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
88.89
94.74
1
1
1
N.234
Chin.
NO
21
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
0
4
0
0
60.00
20.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.235
Chin.
NO
27
F
C
1
C
2
0
2
1
6
3
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
2
1
2
N.236
Chin.
YES
40
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
10
0
0
50.00
55.56
52.63
33.33
0.00
100.00
60.00
88.89
73.68
3
1
1
N.237
Chin.
NO
23
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
2.5
2.5
1
50.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
2
2
4
N.238
Chin.
YES
28
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
7
0
0
70.00
70.00
70.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
2
3
1
N.239
Chin.
NO
17
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
0
2
0
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
66.67
0.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
3
1
N.240
Chin.
NO
17
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
0
0
1
40.00
50.00
45.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
40.00
70.00
55.00
2
2
2
N.241
Chin.
YES
31
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
4
0
0
60.00
50.00
55.00
33.33
0.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
3
1
1
N.242
Chin.
YES
38
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
7
0
1
70.00
55.56
63.16
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
88.89
78.95
1
1
2
N.243
Chin.
YES
22
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
5
5.5
1
70.00
44.44
57.89
0.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
88.89
94.74
2
1
1
N.244
Chin.
YES
33
M
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
4
0
0
20.00
66.67
37.50
0.00
50.00
100.00
20.00
66.67
44.44
1
2
1
N.245
Chin.
NO
25
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4.5
4.5
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
1
2
N.246
Chin.
NO
20
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
0
2
0
0
80.00
50.00
65.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
2
1
N.247
Chin.
YES
23
M
C
1
C
1
2
3
1
5
0
1
80.00
40.00
60.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
1
2
N.248
Chin.
YES
32
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
3
6
0
1
70.00
60.00
65.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
1
1
N.249
Chin.
NO
29
F
C
2
C
1
1
2
1
5.5
0
0
70.00
55.56
63.16
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
88.89
84.21
2
1
1
N.250
Chin.
YES
34
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
1
6
0
0
60.00
50.00
55.00
0.00
50.00
66.67
70.00
100.00
85.00
1
2
3
N.251
Chin.
YES
33
M
C
1
C
1
1
2
2
6
0
0
50.00
70.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.252
Chin.
NO
26
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
1
5
0
0
30.00
33.33
31.58
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
88.89
89.47
1
2
1
N.253
Chin.
YES
32
F
C
1
C
2
1
3
2
8
0
0
40.00
22.22
31.58
50.00
50.00
0.00
60.00
77.78
68.42
2
2
1
N.254
Chin.
YES
16
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0.5
0
40.00
33.33
36.84
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
77.78
84.21
1
1
1
N.255
Chin.
YES
16
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
2
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
30.00
90.00
60.00
2
2
1
N.256
Chin.
NO
32
F
C
1
E
2
2
4
2
7
0.16
1
40.00
25.00
33.33
66.67
100.00
75.00
50.00
50.00
44.44
3
2
4
N.257
Chin.
NO
24
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
2
0
55.56
66.67
61.11
0.00
100.00
100.00
77.78
88.89
83.33
1
1
1
N.258
Chin.
NO
23
F
C
0
E
2
2
4
0
5
0.75
0
70.00
60.00
65.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
2
1
N.259
Chin.
NO
23
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
0
90.00
60.00
75.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1
1
1
N.260
Chin.
NO
23
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
3
0
1
50.00
20.00
36.36
0.00
100.00
100.00
83.33
80.00
81.82
1
2
1
N.261
Chin.
NO
25
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
3
0
0
70.00
50.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
1
1
2
N.262
Chin.
YES
35
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
1
1
40.00
60.00
50.00
33.33
100.00
100.00
50.00
90.00
70.00
3
2
2
N.263
Chin.
NO
30
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4
0
1
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
33.33
50.00
50.00
90.00
70.00
1
3
2
N.264
Chin.
YES
32
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4
2
0
20.00
57.14
35.29
50.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
70.59
2
1
1
N.265
Chin.
YES
34
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
6
0
0
44.44
50.00
47.37
33.33
75.00
50.00
100.00
90.00
94.74
3
4
4
N.266
Chin.
NO
35
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
3
0
0
0
30.00
28.57
29.41
0.00
0.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
88.24
1
2
2
N.267
Chin.
YES
29
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
0
50.00
80.00
65.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
1
1
N.268
Chin.
NO
32
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
2
0
0
20.00
50.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
1
1
1
N.269
Chin.
NO
25
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
2
0
1
30.00
16.67
25.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
40.00
33.33
37.50
2
2
2
N.270
Chin.
YES
25
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
9
0
1
20.00
30.00
25.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
2
1
2
N.271
Chin.
YES
22
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4
5
0
50.00
30.00
40.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
2
2
1
N.272
Chin.
YES
20
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
9
1
20.00
20.00
20.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
2
1
1
N.273
Chin.
YES
22
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.274
Chin.
YES
36
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
4
6
0
1
50.00
50.00
50.00
33.33
50.00
100.00
40.00
90.00
65.00
3
2
2
N.275
Chin.
NO
34
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
7
0.5
0
60.00
71.43
64.71
50.00
50.00
50.00
60.00
100.00
76.47
2
2
2
N.276
Chin.
NO
21
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
55.56
57.14
56.25
0.00
100.00
100.00
66.67
100.00
81.25
1
1
1
N.277
Chin.
NO
28
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
7
1
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
2
2
1
N.278
Chin.
NO
21
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
2
1
40.00
70.00
55.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
2
2
1
N.279
Chin.
NO
23
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
6
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
66.67
100.00
0.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
3
1
1
N.280
Chin.
NO
22
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
3
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
1
2
4
N.281
Chin.
NO
24
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
25.00
25.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
4
4
4
N.282
Chin.
NO
22
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
2
0
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
1
1
N.283
Chin.
NO
29
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
11
0
0
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
1
2
1
N.284
Chin.
NO
33
M
C
1
E
2
2
4
1
4
0
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.285
Chin.
NO
21
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
4.5
0
0
20.00
70.00
45.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
75.00
2
1
1
N.286
Chin.
NO
26
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
50.00
44.44
47.37
50.00
100.00
0.00
40.00
88.89
63.16
4
1
1
N.287
Chin.
YES
28
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
5
6
0
50.00
60.00
55.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
80.00
65.00
1
1
1
N.288
Chin.
YES
27
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
2.5
0
0
55.56
50.00
52.63
33.33
100.00
50.00
88.89
100.00
94.74
3
3
2
N.289
Chin.
YES
21
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
1
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
100.00
85.00
2
1
1
N.290
Chin.
YES
21
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
1
60.00
30.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.291
Chin.
YES
33
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
4
5
1
60.00
30.00
45.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.292
Chin.
NO
30
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
40.00
70.00
55.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
1
2
N.293
Chin.
YES
16
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
60.00
30.00
45.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.294
Chin.
YES
16
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
70.00
44.44
57.89
0.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
2
1
N.295
Chin.
YES
25
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
8
0
0
60.00
50.00
55.00
33.33
100.00
100.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
3
2
1
N.296
Chin.
NO
23
F
C
0
C
2
2
4
0
3
3
0
50.00
70.00
60.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
1
3
0
N.297
Chin.
NO
19
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0.5
0
0
50.00
40.00
45.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
2
1
N.298
Chin.
YES
22
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
1
1
1
N.299
Chin.
YES
34
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
3
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
33.33
50.00
50.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
3
2
2
N.300
Chin.
YES
35
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
5
0
0
50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
0.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.301
Chin.
NO
49
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
50.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
0.00
50.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
2
1
2
N.302
Chin.
NO
21
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
0
0
40.00
16.67
31.25
50.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
50.00
62.50
2
1
1
N.303
Chin.
NO
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
1
1
1
N.304
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
0
0.5
0.25
0
40.00
20.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
90.00
70.00
1
1
1
N.305
Chin.
NO
45
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
2
6
1
1
40.00
30.00
35.00
33.33
100.00
0.00
60.00
100.00
80.00
3
2
1
N.306
Chin.
NO
25
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
3
1
60.00
60.00
60.00
50.00
75.00
66.67
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
4
3
N.307
Chin.
YES
32
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0.25
0
90.00
80.00
85.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2
2
1
N.308
Chin.
NO
33
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
2.75
1
40.00
22.22
31.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
66.67
73.68
1
1
1
73
N.309
Chin.
YES
20
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0
0
1
30.00
30.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
66.67
80.00
90.00
85.00
1
1
3
N.310
Chin.
YES
32
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
0
60.00
40.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
70.00
80.00
75.00
1
1
1
N.311
Chin.
YES
26
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
8
1
1
50.00
60.00
55.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.312
Chin.
YES
25
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
5
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
90.00
70.00
2
2
2
N.313
Chin.
YES
27
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
6
0
1
30.00
60.00
45.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
60.00
90.00
75.00
1
1
2
N.314
Chin.
YES
23
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
5
0
0
60.00
60.00
60.00
33.33
50.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
3
2
1
N.315
Chin.
YES
25
M
C
3
C
2
2
4
1
4.5
0
0
50.00
44.44
47.37
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
88.89
89.47
2
1
1
N.316
Chin.
NO
23
M
C
2
C
2
2
4
1
5
0
0
40.00
40.00
40.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
90.00
80.00
85.00
1
2
1
N.317
Chin.
YES
24
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
5
0
1
60.00
60.00
60.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
2
1
1
N.318
Chin.
YES
31
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
7
0
0
80.00
90.00
85.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
90.00
90.00
90.00
1
1
2
N.319
Chin.
NO
24
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
1
4
0
1
60.00
70.00
65.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
2
1
2
N.320
Chin.
YES
25
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
1
5
0.25
1
20.00
50.00
35.00
0.00
66.67
66.67
30.00
80.00
55.00
1
3
3
N.321
Chin.
NO
24
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
10
0
0
30.00
50.00
40.00
50.00
100.00
0.00
40.00
100.00
70.00
2
1
1
N.322
Chin.
YES
21
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
1
60.00
50.00
55.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
90.00
100.00
95.00
2
2
2
N.323
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
0.5
0
0
40.00
60.00
50.00
20.00
100.00
0.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
5
1
1
N.324
Chin.
NO
20
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
75.00
88.89
1
1
1
N.325
Chin.
NO
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
10
0
50.00
22.22
36.84
100.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
66.67
63.16
1
1
1
N.326
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2.5
0.16
1
60.00
50.00
55.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
1
1
1
N.327
Chin.
YES
20
F
C
2
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
1
55.56
70.00
63.16
66.67
50.00
50.00
66.67
90.00
78.95
3
4
4
N.328
Chin.
YES
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
3
3
0
70.00
40.00
55.00
33.33
50.00
50.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
3
2
2
N.329
Chin.
NO
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
10
1
60.00
40.00
50.00
33.33
0.00
50.00
60.00
80.00
70.00
3
1
2
N.330
Chin.
NO
20
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
0
40.00
60.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
100.00
90.00
2
2
2
N.331
Chin.
NO
19
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
1
20.00
50.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
90.00
95.00
1
1
2
N.332
Chin.
NO
24
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
1
7
0
0
30.00
70.00
50.00
33.33
66.67
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
3
3
2
N.333
Chin.
NO
24
M
C
2
C
2
2
4
1
7
0
0
40.00
50.00
45.00
40.00
66.67
66.67
80.00
100.00
90.00
5
3
3
N.334
Chin.
YES
20
M
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
1
0
1
70.00
40.00
55.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
70.00
90.00
80.00
2
1
3
N.335
Chin.
YES
20
F
C
1
C
2
2
4
0
2
0
0
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
80.00
90.00
85.00
2
2
1
REFERENCES
Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics. Ohio: The
Chemical Rubber Co.
Casad, H. Eugene. 1992. Windows on bilingualism. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute of
Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
DeFrances, John. 1984. The Chinese language, fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Ε•tiemble [no first name given]. 1954. New China and the Chinese Language. In Diogenes. 195456. International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. Nos. 5-13. London:
The Curwen Press.
Isaac, Stephen and William B. Michael. 1990. A handbook in research and evaluation—for
education and the behavioral science. San Diego: Edits Publishers.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than a cool reason. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Li, Leyi. 1993. Tracing the roots of Chinese characters: 500 cases. Beijing: Beijing Language and
Culture University Press.
McHenry, Robert (ed.). 1992. The New EncyclopQdia Britannica. Vol. 6. Chicago:
EncyclopQdia Britannica, Inc.
McNeill, David. 1987. Psycholinguistics, a new approach. New York: Harper and Row.
Whorf, L. Benjamin. 1956. Language, thoughts, and reality. New York: The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wilder. G.B and J.H. Ingram. 1963. Analysis of Chinese characters. Taiwan: Tung Hai Book Co.
and
. 1967.
.
:
.
74