_published_in_May_1977.pdf/page1-232px-Second_Chinese_Character_Simplification_Scheme_(Draft)_published_in_May_1977.pdf.jpg){kind=small}
_published_in_May_1977.pdf/page1-1545px-Second_Chinese_Character_Simplification_Scheme_(Draft)_published_in_May_1977.pdf.jpg)
Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Second round of simplified Chinese characters.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Second round of simplified Chinese characters
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
| Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simplified Chinese | 第二次汉字简化方案（草案） | ||||||||||
| Traditional Chinese | 第二次漢字簡化方案（草案） | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Abbreviation | |||||||||||
| Simplified Chinese | 二简字[a] | ||||||||||
| Traditional Chinese | 二簡字 | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The second round of Chinese character simplification[b] was an aborted script reform promulgated on 20 December 1977 by the People's Republic of China (PRC). It was intended to replace the first round of simplified characters already in use. The complete proposal contained two lists: the first list consisted of 248 characters to be simplified, and the second list consisted of 605 characters to be evaluated and discussed. Of these characters, 21 from the first list and 40 from the second served as components, which modified some 4,500 characters.
Following widespread confusion and opposition, the second round of simplification was officially rescinded on 24 June 1986 by the State Council. Since then, the PRC has used the first-round simplified characters as its official script. Rather than ruling out further simplification, however, the retraction declared that further reform of the Chinese characters should be done with caution. Today, some second-round simplified characters, while considered non-standard, continue to survive in informal usage.
History
[edit]The traditional relationship between written Chinese and vernacular Chinese varieties has been compared to that of Latin with the Romance languages in the Renaissance era.[1] The modern simplification movement grew out of efforts to make the written language more accessible, which culminated in the replacement of Classical Chinese with written vernacular Chinese in the early 20th century.[2] The fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911 and subsequent loss of prestige associated with classical writing helped facilitate this shift, but a series of further reforms aided by the efforts of reformers like Qian Xuantong were ultimately thwarted by conservative elements in the new government and the intellectual class.[3][4]
Continuing the work of previous reformers, in 1956 the People's Republic of China promulgated the Scheme of Simplified Chinese Characters, later referred to as the "First Round" or "First Scheme". The plan was adjusted slightly in the following years, eventually stabilizing in 1964 with a definitive list of character simplifications. These are the simplified Chinese characters that are used today in mainland China and Singapore.[5] Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau did not adopt the simplifications, and the characters used in those places are known as traditional Chinese characters.[6]
Also released in 1964 was a directive for further simplification in order to improve literacy, with the goal of eventually reducing the number of strokes in commonly used characters to ten or fewer. This was to take place gradually, with consideration for both "ease of production [writing] and ease of recognition [reading]." In 1975, a second round of simplifications, the Second Scheme, was submitted by the Script Reform Committee of China to the State Council for approval. Like the First Scheme, it contained two lists, where the first table (comprising 248 characters) was for immediate use, and the second table (comprising 605 characters) for evaluation and discussion.[8] Of these characters, 21 from the first list and 40 from the second also served as components of other characters, which caused the Second Scheme to modify some 4,500 characters.[9] On 20 December 1977, major newspapers such as the People's Daily and the Guangming Daily published the second-round simplifications along with editorials and articles endorsing the changes. Both newspapers began to use the characters from the first list the following day.[10]
The Second Scheme was received extremely poorly, and as early as mid-1978, the Ministry of Education and the Central Propaganda Department were asking publishers of textbooks, newspapers, and other works to stop using the second-round simplifications. Second-round simplifications were taught inconsistently in the education system, and people used characters at various stages of official or unofficial simplification. Confusion and disagreement ensued.[11]
The Second Scheme was officially retracted by the State Council on 24 June 1986. The State Council's retraction emphasized that Chinese character reform should henceforth proceed with caution, and that the forms of Chinese characters should be kept stable.[12] Later that year, a final version of the 1964 list was published with minor changes, and no further changes have been made since.[5]
Methods of simplification
[edit] |
The second round of simplification continued to use the methods used in the first round. For example:
In some characters, the phonetic component of the character was replaced with a simpler one, while the radical was unchanged. For example:
In some characters, entire components were replaced by ones that are similar in shape:
- 幕 → 𫯜 (⿱大巾)
- 整 → 𰋞 (⿱大正)
- 迎 → 迊
- 答 → 荅
- 撤 → 𢪃 (⿰扌切)
- 阎 → 闫
In some characters, components that are complicated are replaced with a simpler one not similar in shape but sometimes similar in sound:
- 鞋 → 𰆻 (⿰又圭)
- 短 → 𰦓 (⿰矢卜)
- 道 → 辺
- 嚷 → 𠮵 (⿰口上)
In some characters, the radical is simply dropped, leaving only the phonetic. This results in mergers between previously distinct characters:
- 稀 → 希
- 彩 → 采
- 帮 → 邦
- 蝌蚪 → 科斗
- 蚯蚓 → 丘引
- 豫 → 予
In some characters, entire components are dropped:
- 糖 → 𰪩 (⿰米广)
- 停 → 仃
- 餐 → 歺
- 雪 → 𫜹
- 宣 → 㝉
- 囊 → 𰀉 (⿻一中)
Some characters are simply replaced by a similar-sounding one (a rebus or phonetic loan). This also results in mergers between previously distinct characters:
- 萧 → 肖
- 蛋 → 旦
- 泰 → 太
- 雄 → 厷
- 鳜 → 桂
- 籍 → 笈
- 芭/粑/笆 → 巴
- 蝴/糊/猢 → 胡
- 衩/扠/杈/汊 → 叉
Reasons for failure
[edit]The Second Scheme broke with a millennia-long cycle of variant forms coming into unofficial use and eventually being accepted (90 percent of the changes made in the First Scheme existed in mass use, many for centuries[13]) in that it introduced new, unfamiliar character forms.[14][15] The sheer number of characters it changed, the distinction between simplifications intended for immediate use and those for review not being maintained in practice, and its release in the shadow of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1978) have been cited among the chief reasons for its failure.[9][16][17][18] As a result of the Cultural Revolution, trained experts were expelled and the Second Scheme was compiled by the committee and its staffers without outside consultation, which may also have been a factor.[13]
The exact circumstances surrounding the creation and release of the Second Scheme remain in mystery due to the still-classified nature of many documents and the politically sensitive nature of the issue. However, the Second Scheme is known to have encompassed only about 100 characters before its expansion to over 850.[19] A two-year delay from 1975 to 1977 was officially blamed on Zhang Chunqiao, a member of the Gang of Four; however, there is little historical evidence to support this.[20] Against the political backdrop of the Cultural Revolution, a special section known as the "748 Project" was formed with an emphasis on non-experts, under whose supervision the lists grew significantly. The bulk of the work is believed to have been performed by staffers without proper oversight.[18][21]
The Second Scheme's subsequent rejection by the public has been cited as a case study in a failed attempt to artificially control the direction of a language's evolution.[22] It was not embraced by the linguistic community in China upon its release;[23] despite heavy promotion in official publications, Rohsenow observes that "in the case of some of the character forms constructed by the staff members themselves" the public at large found proposed changes "laughable".[24]
Political issues aside, Chen Ping objects to the notion that all characters should be reduced to ten or fewer strokes. He argues that a technical shortcoming of the Second Scheme was that the characters it reformed occur less often in writing than those of the First Scheme. As such it provided less benefit to writers while putting an unnecessary burden on readers in making the characters more difficult to distinguish.[25] Citing several studies, Hannas similarly argues against the lack of differentiation and utility: "it was meaningless to lower the stroke count for its own sake." Thus, he believes simplification and reduction of the number of characters[26] both amount to a zero-sum game—simplification in one area of use causing complication in another—and concludes that "the 'complex' characters in Japanese and Chinese, with their greater redundancy and internal consistency, may have been the better bargain."[27]
Effects
[edit]
While the stated goal of further language reform was not changed, the 1986 conference which retracted the Second Scheme emphasized that future reforms should proceed with caution.[28] It also "explicitly precluded any possibility of developing Hanyu Pinyin as an independent writing system (wénzì)."[29] The focus of language planning policy in China following the conference shifted from simplification and reform to standardization and regulation of existing characters,[30] and the topic of further simplification has since been described as "untouchable" in the field.[31] However, the possibility of future changes remains,[32] and the difficulties the Chinese writing system presents for information technology have renewed the Romanization debate.[33][34]
Today, second round characters are officially regarded as incorrect. However, some have survived in informal contexts; this is because some people who were in school between 1977 and 1986 received their education in second-round characters.[citation needed] In three cases, the second round split one family name into two. The first round of simplification had already changed the common surnames 蕭 (Xiāo; 30th most common in 1982) and 閻 (Yán; 50th) into 萧 and 阎. The second round adjusted these further and combined them with other characters previously much less common as surnames: 肖 and 闫. Similarly, 傅 (Fù; 36th) was changed to 付.[citation needed]
Technical information
[edit]Most systems of Chinese character encoding, including Unicode and GB 18030, provide full support for the first list of second-round characters,[35] and only partial support for the second list, with many such characters unencoded or yet to be standardized. Mojikyo supports the characters on the first list.
Example text
[edit]From Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Second Round Simplified Chinese:
- First-round Simplified Chinese script: 人人生来自由，在尊严和权利上一律平等。他们有理性和良心，请以手足关系的精神相对待。
- Traditional Chinese script: 人人生來自由，在尊嚴和權利上一律平等。他們有理性和良心，請以手足關係的精神相對待。
Notes
[edit]References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ Hannas (1997), p. 248.
- ^ Chen (1999), pp. 70–75.
- ^ Chen (1999), pp. 150–153.
- ^ Rohsenow (2004), p. 22.
- ^ a b See Chen 1999, pp. 154–155 for information on Singapore. Note that, while Singapore adopted the First Scheme, it did not follow suit with the Second Scheme.
- ^ Chen (1999), pp. 162–163.
- ^ Ramsey 1989, pp. 146–147. "The publication of the 1964 list was meant to clarify what the limits [of character simplification] were. These limits again became obscure, however, with the beginning of the Cultural Revolution in 1966. Character simplification had been represented all along as a kind of Marxist, proletarian process; as a consequence, coining and using new characters became a popular way to show that one's writing was being done in right spirit. Wall slogans, signs, and mimeographed literature of all kinds began to be embellished with abbreviations never seen before. Within a short time the Committee on Language Reform had turned to the task of collecting characters 'simplified by the masses'..." (emphasis added)
- ^ Chen (1999), pp. 155–160.
- ^ a b Hannas (1997), pp. 22–24.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 62.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 62–64.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 51.
- ^ a b Chen (1999), pp. 155–156.
- ^ Hannas (1997), pp. 223–224.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 67–68.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 66–69.
- ^ Chen (1999), p. 160.
- ^ a b Rohsenow (2004), p. 29.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 54.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 58.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 54–62.
- ^ Hodge & Louie (1998), pp. 63–64.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 63.
- ^ Rohsenow (2004), pp. 28–29.
- ^ Chen (1999), p. 160–162.
- ^ Hannas (1997), p. 215.
- ^ Hannas (1997), pp. 226–229.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 64.
- ^ Rohsenow (2004), p. 30.
- ^ Rohsenow (2004), p. 32.
- ^ Zhao & Baldauf (2007), p. 299-300.
- ^ See Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 299–312 (chapter 7, section 3) "Crackling the Hard Nut: Dealing with the Rescinded Second Scheme and Banned Traditional Characters".
- ^ Hannas (1997), p. 25.
- ^ See Zhao & Baldauf (2007), pp. 288–299 (chapter 7, section 2) "Romanization - Old Questions, New Challenge". Also see Chen (1999), p. 164 (chapter 10) "Phonetization of Chinese".
- ^ Alexander, Zapryagaev (2019-09-30). "IRGN2414" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-02-03.
Works cited
[edit]- Bökset, Roar (2006). Long Story of Short Forms: The Evolution of Simplified Chinese Characters (PDF). Stockholm East Asian Monographs. Vol. 11. Stockholm University. ISBN 978-9-162-86832-1.
- Chen, Ping (1999). Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-64572-0.
- DeFrancis, John (1984). The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1068-9.
- Hannas, William C. (1997). Asia's Orthographic Dilemma. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1892-0.
- Hodge, Bob; Louie, Kam (1998). The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons. Culture and communication in Asia. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-17266-0.
- Ramsey, S. Robert (1989). The Languages of China. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01468-5.
- Rohsenow, John S. (2004). "Fifty Years of Script and Language Reform in the PRC". In Zhou, Minglang; Sun, Hongkai (eds.). Language Policy in the People's Republic of China: Theory and Practice Since 1949. Vol. 4. Boston: Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4020-8038-8.
- Zhao, Shouhui; Baldauf, Richard B. Jr. (2007). Planning Chinese Characters: Reaction, Evolution or Revolution?. Language policy. Vol. 9. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-48574-4.
External links
[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Scalable graphics of second-round simplified Chinese characters.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Examples of use of second-round simplified Chinese characters.
- Andrew West, Proposal to Encode Obsolete Simplified Chinese Characters (PDF version), section 4: Second Stage Simplified Characters (1977)
- BabelStone Fonts : BabelStone Erjian
Second round of simplified Chinese characters
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Historical Context
Origins in First-Round Simplification
The first round of Chinese character simplification, formalized through the "Scheme for the Simplifying Chinese Characters" issued by the Script Reform Committee on January 28, 1956, targeted 515 individual characters and 54 radicals or components, drawing from historical abbreviations, vulgar variants, and cursive forms to reduce stroke counts and facilitate literacy. This initial effort was expanded with the publication of the "General Table of Simplified Characters" on February 4, 1964, which standardized 2,238 simplified forms and 14 simplified radicals, affecting approximately 2,000 commonly used characters while preserving recognizability to minimize disruption in reading existing texts. Despite achieving measurable reductions in average stroke numbers—dropping from around 11-12 strokes per character in traditional forms to about 8-9 in simplified equivalents for covered items—many high-frequency characters outside the simplified set retained excessive complexity, with stroke counts often exceeding 15, limiting further gains in writing speed and educational efficiency.[3] Building directly on this foundation, the second round originated from the Script Reform Committee's assessment that the first round's conservative approach, which prioritized gradualism and avoided extensive phonetic mergers or novel inventions to ensure mutual intelligibility, had left substantial room for additional reforms. Internal studies post-1964 revealed persistent barriers to mass literacy, as unsimplified characters constituted a significant portion of everyday vocabulary, and even some first-round simplifications (e.g., retaining multi-component structures) were deemed insufficiently streamlined compared to ancient scribal practices. By the mid-1970s, accumulated proposals from linguists and educators, rooted in the same first-principles of analogical simplification and historical precedent established in 1956, coalesced into drafts for further reductions, including revisions to existing simplified forms and extensions to hitherto untouched characters. This continuity reflected the ongoing mandate of the reform apparatus, which viewed the second scheme not as a rupture but as an iterative deepening of the 1950s-1960s methodology. The proposed second scheme thus inherited and intensified the first round's techniques, such as stroke elimination via component substitution (e.g., replacing intricate radicals with phonetic cues), but extended them to propose 248 immediate simplifications in its primary table, many supplanting first-round variants with fewer strokes, and a secondary table of 569 for phased adoption. This evolution stemmed from empirical observations that first-round simplifications had boosted primary education enrollment but stalled at higher proficiency levels due to residual orthographic density, prompting a push for bolder causal interventions in character morphology to align writing more closely with spoken efficiency.Post-Cultural Revolution Motivations
The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) suspended Chinese script reform initiatives, including further character simplification, amid widespread political upheaval that disrupted educational and linguistic standardization efforts.[4] Reform activities resumed in 1972 with the establishment of a Text Reform Office under the State Language Commission, prompted by an influential article by scholar Guo Moruo in Hongqi magazine advocating continued simplification to align with mass literacy goals.[4] This revival reflected lingering Maoist priorities, even as leadership transitioned following Mao Zedong's death in 1976, with the second scheme formally promulgated on December 20, 1977, under the State Council's approval.[3] Primary motivations centered on rectifying perceived deficiencies in the 1956 Table of Simplified Characters, which had reduced average stroke counts but left many forms still overly complex for rapid learning and widespread adoption among non-elite populations.[4] Proponents argued that additional reductions—targeting 248 characters for general simplification and 92 for variant replacements—would accelerate literacy, particularly for peasants, workers, and soldiers, by minimizing writing time and cognitive load in revolutionary education contexts, as emphasized in Renmin Ribao editorials from July 6, 1973.[4] This push embodied a radical, ideologically driven approach that prioritized phonetic shortcuts and stroke elimination over philological consistency, sidelining input from traditional scholars to favor proletarian accessibility amid ongoing debates over script-induced barriers to modernization.[4] Underlying causal factors included persistent chaos in character usage post-1956, where incomplete standardization hindered uniform printing and education, compounded by the first round's failure to fully eradicate "feudal" complexities blamed for low rural literacy rates hovering around 50–60% in the early 1970s.[4] The scheme sought to build on empirical gains from initial simplifications, which had demonstrably lowered stroke averages from 11–12 to about 8 per character, but advocates contended deeper cuts were needed to sustain momentum toward phonetic or even alphabetic alternatives without abandoning hanzi entirely.[3] However, these rationales were critiqued even contemporaneously for overemphasizing ideological purity over practical usability, foreshadowing the proposal's rapid abandonment by 1978 amid shifting post-Mao pragmatism.[4]Development and Proposals
Drafting Committees and Timeline
The development of the second round of simplified Chinese characters was overseen by the Chinese Writing Reform Committee (中国文字改革委员会), the primary body responsible for character reform efforts following the first simplification scheme of the 1950s.[5] This committee, established under the State Council, coordinated the drafting process, drawing on earlier research and public input without forming distinct sub-committees explicitly documented for this phase. Initial planning occurred in the 1950s as an extension of the first-round simplifications, with nationwide solicitation of opinions launched in 1960 to gather variant forms and reduction proposals from scholars, educators, and the public. Work halted in 1966 amid the Cultural Revolution, resuming in 1972 under the direction of Premier Zhou Enlai, who prioritized language reform as part of broader modernization efforts. By May 1975, the committee produced the initial draft of the scheme, submitting it to the State Council for review; this version included 248 characters for immediate simplification and 605 for further evaluation.[5] In October 1977, the State Council approved the committee's report on the draft, leading to its formal promulgation on December 20, 1977, for experimental implementation in publications and education.[5] Usage was suspended in 1978 pending further assessment, and the scheme was officially abolished in June 1986 by the State Language Commission, citing inconsistencies and potential disruption to literacy.[5]Core Simplification Schemes
The Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), published in May 1977 by China's State Language Commission, outlined core simplification approaches aimed at further reducing stroke counts in complex characters to enhance literacy rates, targeting forms with over 10 strokes where possible.[1] The draft proposed modifications for approximately 853 characters across two collections: 248 for immediate implementation and 605 for experimental evaluation, extending principles from the 1956 scheme such as component reduction and analogical application but with greater emphasis on phonetic substitution and variant adoption to achieve steeper stroke economies.[2] These schemes prioritized structural efficiency over strict preservation of etymological or semantic cues, often drawing from cursive script forms or historical variants to minimize redundancy.[3] Key methods included preserving the radical while simplifying the phonetic component, as in rare cases like adapting phonetic elements to basic strokes (e.g., reducing elaborate phonetics to minimal forms without altering core meaning).[2] Another approach involved replacing constituents with semantically equivalent but simpler alternatives or omitting non-essential components to avoid ambiguity, building on first-round techniques but applied to residual complex forms.[2] Phonetic loans—substituting characters with similar pronunciations—were prominent, sacrificing visual-semantic links for brevity, such as proposing 旦 (dàn, "dawn") for 蛋 (dàn, "egg") or 歺 (ancient variant) for 餐 (cān, "meal").[2][3] Dropping radicals in favor of phonetic-only representations risked character mergers, while partial structural reforms incorporated cursive-inspired mergers of strokes, as seen in proposals like 𦬁 for 菜 (cài, "vegetable").[2] These schemes often analogically extended simplifications across character families sharing components, amplifying efficiency but introducing potential legibility issues in series expansions.[3] Unlike the first round's focus on widespread component reforms (e.g., 言 to 讠), the second emphasized holistic replacements with rare or archaic graphs, such as using 歺 (historically linked to "evil" but phonetically adaptable) for compounds like 餐厅 ("restaurant").[3] The draft's principles reflected a utilitarian calculus: average stroke reduction per character outweighed risks of homograph proliferation, justified by post-liberation literacy campaigns but implemented amid limited piloting.[2] Experimental texts in select regions tested these, revealing variances in recognizability but confirming stroke savings of 20-40% in targeted forms.[2]| Original Character | Proposed Second-Round Form | Stroke Reduction | Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 蛋 (egg) | 旦 (dawn) | From 9 to 5 | Phonetic loan[2] |
| 餐 (meal) | 歺 (variant) | From 11 to 3 | Variant substitution[3] |
| 菜 (vegetable) | 𦬁 | From 11 to 8 | Structural merger[2] |
Methods and Principles
Stroke Reduction Techniques
The second round simplification scheme employed stroke reduction techniques to further diminish the graphical complexity of characters, building on the first round's reforms by targeting already simplified forms and traditional holdovers. These methods prioritized forms that minimized writing effort while preserving recognizability, often drawing from historical variants, popular scribal practices, and structural analogies. The scheme's explanatory notes outlined stroke simplification as one of three core approaches, alongside reducing character inventory via substitutions and standardizing writing variants, with the explicit aim of easing literacy burdens in education and daily use. For the 853 proposed characters (248 for immediate implementation and 605 for discussion), stroke counts were aggressively curtailed, averaging a drop from 13.1 strokes in first-round equivalents to 6.9 in the new forms, nearly halving the pen burden for affected entries.[6][7] Key techniques included replacing intricate components with simpler proxies derived from ancient scripts or cursive evolutions, such as converting grass-script-inspired elements into regular script equivalents to eliminate redundant lines. For instance, characters with cumbersome structures like "候" (13 strokes) were recast as "买" (5 strokes), facilitating easier description and memorization during instruction. Analogical application extended reductions across related glyphs: simplifying a phonetic or radical component in one character prompted identical treatment in compounds, as seen in substituting "了" for complex endings in terms like "遼" to "辽" or "療" to "疗," thereby propagating fewer-stroke patterns systematically. Historical or vulgar forms were also normalized where they offered inherent economy, exemplified by adopting "胡" (9 strokes) over "鬍" (18 strokes) or "尘" (6 strokes) for "塵" (14 strokes), leveraging pre-existing low-stroke alternatives that had circulated in non-official writing.[8][7] These reductions often merged or omitted strokes without altering core semantic or phonetic cues, prioritizing empirical usability over etymological purity; proponents argued this aligned with evolutionary trends in script history, where forms naturally shed complexity over time. However, the techniques occasionally blurred into character substitution, as simpler homophonous stand-ins (e.g., "从" for clustered forms) indirectly cut strokes by obviating multi-component originals. Implementation trials emphasized class-push extensions, where a simplified part like a reduced radical was uniformly applied to families of characters, amplifying overall efficiency but risking visual ambiguity in dense texts. Despite the intent for broad adoption starting in 1977, such aggressive pruning drew scrutiny for potentially eroding distinguishability, contributing to the scheme's later retraction.[7][6]Phonetic and Semantic Reforms
The second round simplification scheme incorporated phonetic reforms by prioritizing homophonous elements and unified forms for characters with similar pronunciations, aiming to reduce the complexity of phonetic components within character structures. This method drew on the principle that many Chinese characters already function as phonetic-semantic compounds, where a phonetic element suggests pronunciation alongside a semantic radical indicating meaning. By standardizing simpler phonetic indicators, the scheme sought to decrease stroke counts and facilitate quicker writing and memorization, though it amplified existing homophone densities in the lexicon, potentially hindering precise communication without context. For example, proposals introduced multiple simplified variants for homophones like those pronounced "long," creating inconsistencies in representation across related terms.[9] Semantic reforms emphasized retaining or adapting radicals and components that convey categorical meaning, often by deriving forms from cursive scripts or historical variants that preserved semantic integrity while eliminating redundant strokes. This approach extended analogical simplifications, where a simplified radical applied broadly to compounds sharing semantic fields, such as nature or action categories. However, overuse of certain simplified semantic elements, including the radical "ji," led to blurred distinctions between characters with overlapping meanings, undermining the scheme's goal of clarity. Empirical tests revealed significant recognition challenges, with Taiwanese readers achieving only 38.47% accuracy in identifying proposed forms, attributing errors to disrupted semantic-phonetic balances.[9] These reforms reflected a tension between efficiency gains and preservation of the logographic system's inherent phonetic-semantic logic, as analyzed by linguist John S. Rohsenow, who noted the scheme's reliance on existing vulgar forms and deletions of superfluous parts for standardization. Unlike the first round's more conservative adjustments, the second pushed toward greater phonetic tolerance and semantic streamlining, but causal analyses indicate that such changes risked eroding character distinctiveness without proportional literacy benefits, contributing to the proposal's later retraction.[9]Implementation and Trials
Experimental Usage in Education
The Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), promulgated on December 20, 1977, by the State Language Reform Commission, explicitly called for experimental application across media, including educational materials, to assess practicality and public reception prior to full adoption.[10] This trial phase targeted further stroke reduction in 853 characters and 61 components, building on the 1956 first-round simplifications, with the goal of accelerating literacy acquisition in primary and secondary education amid post-Cultural Revolution reconstruction efforts.[11] On March 2, 1978, China's Ministry of Education directed the incorporation of select second-round simplifications into primary and secondary school textbooks as part of this controlled experiment, aiming to evaluate impacts on character recognition and writing efficiency among students.[12] Initial implementations appeared in limited print runs of educational content, reflecting the scheme's emphasis on phonetic and semantic consistency to minimize confusion in classroom settings. However, feedback highlighted ambiguities, such as forms resembling Japanese kana or archaic variants, which risked undermining reading comprehension for young learners accustomed to first-round standards.[13] By April 1978, mounting concerns over pedagogical disruptions prompted the Ministry of Education to rescind the textbook trial directive, effectively halting systematic educational deployment after mere weeks.[13] This rapid reversal stemmed from reports of increased errors in student handwriting and interoperability issues with existing simplified texts, underscoring the scheme's failure to achieve intended learning gains without introducing new barriers. No nationwide data on student performance during the brief trial exists, but the brevity of the experiment precluded meaningful longitudinal assessment, contributing to broader skepticism about radical reforms in formal instruction.[12] Subsequent media trials, including in People's Daily until July 1978, indirectly influenced education by exposing teachers and students to variants via supplementary readings, though official school curricula reverted to first-round forms.[13] The episode revealed tensions between ideological drives for script efficiency and empirical needs for stability in character-based pedagogy, where over-simplification exacerbated rather than alleviated cognitive loads in early literacy stages. By September 1978, all national publications ceased second-round usage, confining any residual educational exposure to informal or regional holdovers that dissipated under centralized policy shifts.[12]Public and Institutional Response
The experimental implementation of the second-round simplifications in educational materials and select publications after their promulgation on December 20, 1977, generated widespread practical difficulties, including heightened character confusion from excessive stroke reduction and phonetic merging, which impeded reading comprehension and writing accuracy among students and the general populace.[14][15] Reports from trial sites indicated that the forms often resembled existing simplified or traditional variants too closely, exacerbating errors in low-literacy environments where the reforms were ostensibly aimed.[16] Prominent linguists and intellectuals mounted substantive critiques, emphasizing functional and aesthetic deficits; for instance, Zhou Youguang, Wang Li, and Hu Yuzhi contended that the proposals distorted character proportions, rendered forms visually unappealing, and eroded the semantic and structural integrity essential to Hanzi's historical evolution, prioritizing radical minimalism over usability.[15] These objections underscored a causal disconnect between the scheme's literacy-boosting intent and its outcomes, as over-simplification amplified homophony and reduced discriminability without commensurate gains in accessibility.[17] Institutionally, the State Language Reform Committee initially endorsed the draft for phased trials, but mounting evidentiary feedback from usage experiments revealed systemic incompatibilities with established printing, typesetting, and archival systems, prompting a policy reversal.[18] The State Council formally abrogated the scheme on June 24, 1986, amid a national pivot toward pragmatic reforms that de-emphasized disruptive orthographic changes in favor of economic modernization.[16] This retraction effectively halted official propagation, though isolated informal adoptions lingered in vernacular contexts.[19]Opposition and Retraction
Scholarly and Cultural Criticisms
Scholars criticized the second round simplification scheme for excessive reduction in strokes, which disrupted the intricate balance between a character's form, pronunciation, and meaning inherent in traditional Chinese orthography. For example, proposals to replace components like "齿" with "止" eliminated phonetic indicators derived from historical evolution, rendering characters less intuitive for learners and users reliant on radical-phonetic structures. Critics also viewed many simplified forms as disproportionate and lacking traditional aesthetic harmony, disrupting the structural balance and visual appeal of characters, with public feedback noting discomfort from these altered shapes perceived as distorted or incomplete.[20][21][22] Linguistic analyses highlighted increased ambiguity from merging distinct characters into shared forms, such as unifying "停" and "仃" under "仃" or consolidating variants like "叉、杈、衩、汊、扠" into "叉," which compromised readability and raised risks of misinterpretation in both handwriting and printed text.[22] Inconsistent applications further violated orthographic regularity; treatments differed for semantically related terms, as in "罐" versus "灌," or radical simplifications like "藏、嚷、壤" to "上," eroding the systematic cues that facilitate character recognition and recall.[22] Culturally, opponents contended that the scheme's radical alterations would sever generational ties to classical texts, where traditional forms preserve etymological and symbolic depth accumulated over millennia, potentially accelerating the erosion of shared heritage in favor of utilitarian expediency.[23] This perspective framed the 1977 draft's 248 proposed characters as an overreach that prioritized short-term literacy gains over long-term cultural continuity, prompting broad academic resistance that underscored the characters' role as repositories of civilizational memory.[22]Political Shifts Under Deng Xiaoping
Deng Xiaoping's ascent to paramount leadership following Mao Zedong's death in 1976 and the arrest of the Gang of Four in October 1977 marked a decisive pivot from the ideological extremism of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) toward pragmatic governance and economic modernization. The second round of simplified Chinese characters, drafted in 1977 under the lingering influence of radical policies, faced growing scrutiny as Deng's reforms emphasized stability, intellectual rehabilitation, and "seeking truth from facts" over disruptive campaigns. This shift enabled linguists and educators, previously sidelined during the Cultural Revolution, to voice opposition, arguing that further simplifications risked eroding character recognizability and historical continuity without commensurate literacy gains.[24] By the early 1980s, Deng's policies, including the 1981 Communist Party resolution denouncing Cultural Revolution excesses, fostered a climate where radical linguistic experiments were reevaluated as relics of dogmatic fervor rather than practical necessities. The second round's proposals, which affected over 800 characters through aggressive stroke reductions and novel forms, were increasingly viewed as incompatible with Deng's focus on standardization to support education, publishing, and emerging information technologies. Official trials in select regions and publications waned amid reports of confusion in reading and writing, prompting the State Language Commission to suspend promotions by the mid-1980s.[25] The formal retraction of the second round on June 4, 1986, by the State Council-aligned bodies reflected Deng's broader de-emphasis on Maoist utopian projects in favor of measurable progress in modernization. This decision prioritized consolidating the first-round simplifications from the 1950s–1960s, aligning with Deng's 1978 call for four modernizations (agriculture, industry, defense, science/technology), where linguistic stability facilitated administrative efficiency and international engagement. While not explicitly mandated by Deng, the abandonment underscored the causal link between his political realignment—reducing class struggle rhetoric and rehabilitating cultural institutions—and the rejection of policies born from the prior era's turmoil.[24][25]Long-Term Effects
Official Abandonment in 1986
In June 1986, the State Council of the People's Republic of China formally abolished the Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), marking the end of efforts to implement further reductions beyond the initial 1956 and 1964 simplifications.[26] The decision was conveyed through State Council Document No. 64 (国发〔1986〕64号), which approved a February 1986 request from the National Language and Script Work Committee (国家语言文字工作委员会) to immediately cease use of the second-round characters and rectify widespread inconsistencies in societal character application.[5] This retraction affected approximately 248 proposed simplifications and 605 characters under review, restoring them to their prior standardized forms to eliminate ambiguities in recognition and usage.[25] The abandonment addressed practical disruptions caused by the scheme's aggressive stroke reductions, which had led to readability issues, printing errors, and educational challenges, as many second-round forms deviated significantly from familiar variants and introduced new homograph-like confusions.[25] Official rationale highlighted the need for uniformity in media, textbooks, and official documents, noting that unchecked proliferation of irregular simplifications had fostered chaos rather than efficiency.[26] Later that year, authorities issued a consolidated simplification table identical to the 1964 list, with minor adjustments to three characters (叠, 覆, 像) reverted to traditional forms for clarity.[2] Post-retraction enforcement involved directives to publishers, schools, and government bodies to purge second-round characters from materials, though compliance varied regionally due to prior experimental adoption in some areas.[5] The move signaled a policy pivot toward character standardization over ongoing reform, with the National Language and Script Work Committee tasked with monitoring adherence and compiling general standard lists, such as the 1986 edition excluding second-round elements.[25] This official halt precluded additional rounds of simplification, preserving the existing simplified corpus amid recognition that further changes risked undermining literacy gains from the first round.[27]Surviving Informal Variants
Despite the official retraction of the Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme in 1986, a limited number of its proposed variants have persisted in informal handwriting, signage, and vernacular usage among certain populations in mainland China, primarily due to entrenched habits formed during the scheme's experimental phase from 1977 to the mid-1980s.[2] These survivors are not recognized in standard printed materials or official fonts but appear sporadically in personal notes, restaurant menus, and wall inscriptions, reflecting residual literacy patterns from the Cultural Revolution era when the scheme was trialed in schools and media.[28] Prominent examples include 歺, the proposed simplification of 餐 (meaning "meal"), which endures in handwritten compounds like 快歺 ("fast food" or kuài cān), especially on informal eatery signs where speed of writing favors the ultra-reduced form over the first-round simplified 餐. This variant, reducing 餐 from 12 strokes to 3, was part of the scheme's aggressive stroke-minimization approach but gained traction in daily scrawls despite lacking etymological basis in the character's oracle bone origins.[29] Similarly, 鸡旦 substitutes for 鸡蛋 ("chicken egg"), with 旦 simplifying 蛋 by borrowing a phonetically approximate but historically unrelated graph, a method criticized for disrupting semantic clarity yet retained in rural or elderly handwriting for its brevity.[28] Other informal holdovers, such as altered forms in surnames like 咨 for 諮 (in rare personal names) or 炖 variants, appear in isolated contexts like family registries or dialectal notes, though their prevalence has declined with generational shifts toward standardized simplified characters.[30] These usages, while unofficial and often viewed as errors in formal settings, illustrate how bottom-up adoption during the scheme's nine-year rollout created pockets of resistance to top-down reversal, with surveys indicating recognition rates exceeding 80% among older demographics in the 1990s.[2] No systematic data tracks current frequency, but anecdotal evidence from urban signage suggests gradual obsolescence absent institutional support.[29]Technical Details
Character Mapping and Standards
The Second Chinese Character Simplification Scheme (Draft), published in May 1977 and promulgated on December 20, 1977, specified mappings primarily for characters already simplified in the first round (1956 scheme), targeting further reductions in stroke count and structural complexity within a corpus of approximately 4,500 common characters._published_in_May_1977.pdf) The draft structured these mappings into two tables: Table 1 listed 248 characters with finalized simplified forms intended for immediate experimental use, while Table 2 proposed 605 additional mappings for evaluation and discussion, totaling 853 characters affected.[31] Mappings were presented as direct substitutions, often deriving new forms from phonetic components, historical variants, or mass-popular handwriting patterns observed in everyday use, such as replacing complex radicals with simpler analogs (e.g., adapting '頁' components or voice-side elements like substituting '了' for '尞' in words like 遼 to 辽)._published_in_May_1977.pdf) Selection criteria emphasized practicality for writing efficiency, prioritizing forms that reduced strokes without ambiguity, while favoring prevalent folk simplifications over contrived inventions; new forms were created only where patterns from mass usage (e.g., abbreviating shared radicals like '車' to '车' extensions) allowed broader applicability across related characters.[8] For instance, the mapping for 酒 (jiǔ, wine) proposed 氿, reducing strokes from 10 to 6 by streamlining the '酉' radical, and 菜 (cài, vegetable) to 𦬁, analogizing from simplified '艹' and phonetic cues.[31] These were not encoded in national standards like GB 2312-1980, which adhered to first-round simplifications, as the scheme remained experimental without formal ratification or typeface integration.[32]| Original (First-Round Simplified) | Proposed Second-Round Form | Stroke Reduction | Example Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 酒 | 氿 | 10 to 6 | Alcoholic beverage |
| 菜 | 𦬁 | 11 to 7 | Vegetable |
| 廣 | 垠 | 14 to 6 | Broad/Guangdong |
Compatibility Issues with Existing Systems
The proposed second-round simplifications, particularly those in the draft scheme beyond the initial trial list of 248 characters, were incompatible with the GB/T 2312-1980 national standard for Chinese character information interchange, which encoded only 6,763 characters based on first-round simplifications and excluded the new variants to maintain stability in data processing.[33] This omission meant early digital systems, such as those using GB2312 for text storage and display in computers introduced in China during the late 1970s and 1980s, could not render or input second-round forms without proprietary extensions, leading to errors in software applications and databases reliant on standard encodings.[34] Printing and typesetting systems posed additional hurdles, as traditional lead-type composition in publishing houses lacked matrices for the novel character shapes, necessitating costly recasting of type or manual substitutions during the 1977–1986 trial period, which disrupted workflows and increased production expenses for newspapers and textbooks experimenting with the characters.[35] Even for the briefly trialed first list, integration required updates to existing font libraries and proofing processes, amplifying logistical challenges in an era when mechanical printing dominated and digital alternatives were nascent. Long-term digital persistence of these issues is evident in encoding gaps; while Unicode now supports many first-list characters via extensions like CJK Unified Ideographs Extension G (approved post-2010 proposals), over 200 draft variants remain unencoded or require rare font support, rendering them incompatible with standard web browsers, mobile devices, and office software without specialized setups.[31][36] Such fragmentation would have demanded nationwide retrofitting of hardware, software, and training protocols had adoption proceeded, mirroring disruptions seen in partial implementations but on a vastly larger scale due to the scheme's overlap with established first-round forms.Comparative Analysis
Differences from Traditional and First-Round Characters
The second round of simplified Chinese characters, proposed in the 1977 draft scheme, introduced forms that markedly diverged from traditional characters by prioritizing extreme stroke reduction and structural overhaul over historical fidelity. Traditional characters, with their elaborate components encoding semantic and phonetic information accumulated over millennia, were not the direct target; instead, the scheme built upon first-round simplifications but often replaced them with newly devised or rare variants that sacrificed recognizability for brevity. This approach contrasted with traditional forms' preservation of radicals like those in 餐 (11 strokes), which evokes eating through its meat and food elements, by proposing 歺 (3 strokes), a minimalist phonetic stand-in devoid of such cues.[2] Relative to the first round simplifications enacted between 1956 and 1964, which streamlined around 2,236 characters by adopting cursive abbreviations or ancient variants—reducing average strokes by about 25% while minimizing homophone conflicts—the second round's 248 mandatory and 605 experimental changes pursued even greater efficiency, sometimes at the cost of legibility and etymological links. First-round efforts, such as retaining 蛋 (9 strokes) for egg from its traditional form, emphasized gradual adaptation; the second round's 旦 (4 strokes) repurposed an existing simple character primarily meaning "dawn," introducing potential ambiguities in usage. Similarly, 場 (traditional, 15 strokes; first simplified to 场, 5 strokes) was further altered to 㘯 (4 strokes), compressing the semantic field indicator into a near-phonetic skeleton. These shifts often employed methods like radical omission, component substitution, or phonetic loans, differing from the first round's reliance on established shorthand.[2][3] Key examples illustrate these distinctions:| Character Meaning | Traditional Form (Strokes) | First-Round Simplified (Strokes) | Second-Round Proposed (Strokes) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meal | 餐 (11) | 餐 (11) | 歺 (3) |
| Egg | 蛋 (9) | 蛋 (9) | 旦 (4) |
| Field/Factory | 場 (15) | 场 (5) | 㘯 (4) |
| Street | 街 (13) | 街 (13) | 亍 (3) |
| Stay/Reserve | 留 (10) | 留 (10) | 畄 (5) |
Debates on Readability and Utility
The second round of simplified Chinese characters, promulgated on December 20, 1977, aimed to further reduce stroke counts in commonly used characters to enhance writing efficiency and literacy rates, building on the first simplification's success in lowering average strokes from 16 to about 10.3.[38] Proponents viewed this as a logical extension of phonetic and structural simplification principles, potentially accelerating recognition and production for the masses, particularly in an era prioritizing rapid industrialization and education expansion.[39] However, empirical feedback from trial implementations revealed limited marginal utility, as first-round simplifications had already sufficiently boosted literacy without necessitating further disruption.[40] Critics contended that the scheme compromised readability by over-relying on homophonic substitutions and vulgar variants, which diminished characters' visual distinctiveness and semantic cues derived from structure.[19] For instance, forms like replacing certain characters with near-homophones eroded the ideographic advantages of Hanzi, where shape often conveys meaning independently of pronunciation, leading to increased ambiguity in contexts without vocal clarification.[41] This was evidenced by heightened confusion in educational settings and printing, where distinguishing homonyms became reliant on surrounding text rather than inherent form, potentially slowing comprehension for learners habituated to more differentiated glyphs.[42] Linguists noted that while writing speed improved marginally—estimated at 10-20% for affected characters—the trade-off in recognition accuracy undermined overall utility, as reading demands higher informational density for disambiguation.[43] Utility debates extended to long-term standardization, with opponents arguing the changes exacerbated chaos in an already transitioning orthography, complicating compatibility with pre-existing simplified and traditional systems. Empirical studies post-abandonment in 1986 affirmed that excessive simplification risked eroding Hanzi's evolutionary balance, where historical forms had optimized for both cursory writing and precise legibility over millennia, rather than prioritizing stroke reduction at the expense of discriminability.[44] Advocates for restraint, including educators, emphasized that utility hinges on equilibrium: simplifications viable only if they preserve etymological transparency without inflating error rates in silent reading, a threshold the second round demonstrably failed to meet based on user trials and feedback aggregated by 1978.[45]References
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Second_round_of_simplified_Chinese_characters