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, 1986Master 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 DakotaDecember 1997

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................... ivLIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................viABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER PAGE1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................12. THE CHINESE AND ENGLISH WRITING SYSTEMS....................................................2

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................22.2 The Origin of the Chinese Writing System ......................................................................22.3 The Classification of the Characters................................................................................2

2.3.1 Class 1: The wen2 ‘Simple Characters’ ...............................................................32.3.2 Class 2: The zi4 ‘Compound Characters’ ............................................................42.3.3 Other Classes ...........................................................................................................52.3.4 Summary .................................................................................................................6

2.4 The Uniqueness of the Chinese Writing System ..............................................................62.4.1 The Controversy over the Pictographic Nature of the Characters..............................62.4.2 Reasons to Consider the Chinese Writing System Predominantly Pictographic..........92.4.3 The Potential Influence of the Chinese Writing System on Its Users .......................14

2.5 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................213. RESEARCH METHODOLGY .........................................................................................22

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................223.2 Reasons for Using Metaphor-composing Exercises.......................................................223.3 Reasons for Using Naming Exercises............................................................................223.4 Aim and Versions of the Questionnaire.........................................................................233.5 Contents of the Questionnaire.......................................................................................23

3.5.1 Section I: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Vehicles .................................233.5.2 Section II: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Topics...................................243.5.3 Section III: Naming Rocks Based on Given Descriptions and Drawings .................243.5.4 Section IV: Questions on Personal Particulars ........................................................253.5.5 The Difference between the Two Chinese Versions ................................................253.5.6 The Difference between the Chinese and English Versions......................................28

3.6 Guidelines for Analyzing the Metaphors Composed ......................................................283.6.1 The Definition of ‘I mage-mapping’ .......................................................................283.6.2 Principles for Tabulating the Metaphors .................................................................29

3.7 Statistical Analyses.......................................................................................................313.7.1 Grouping of the Variables ......................................................................................313.7.2 Statistical Technique: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation ..................................323.7.3 Statistical Technique: T-test ...................................................................................353.7.4 Summary ...............................................................................................................35

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS ..................................................................................................374.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................374.2 Findings Related to All 335 Participants .......................................................................37

iii

4.3 Findings Related to the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts............................................................404.4 Findings Related to the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts ........................................424.5 Findings Primarily Related to the 226 Chi-pts ...............................................................434.6 IM's and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ ........................................................................514.7 Summary......................................................................................................................53

5. FURTHER DISCUSSION ................................................................................................555.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................555.2 Concern 1: IM's in Naming Rocks among the Chi-pts ...................................................555.3 Concern 2: Influence from Living Environments ...........................................................565.4 Concern 3: Influence from ‘Visible Topics and Vehicle’ ..............................................585.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................59

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................60APPENDICES..........................................................................................................................61REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................74

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1. Structural Classification of Characters.........................................................................8Table 2. Distribution of Phonetically Determined Characters.....................................................8Table 3. Semantic Versus Phonetic Aspects of Chinese Characters............................................9Table 4. Visual Arrangement of Components in Semantic-Phonetic Compounds .....................11Table 5. Semantic-Phonetic Compounds and the Selection of Their Phonetic Components......13Table 6. Examples of Chinese Noun Classifiers .......................................................................26Table 7. Noun Classifiers Used in Section I.............................................................................27Table 8. Noun Classifiers Used in Section II ...........................................................................28Table 9 Examples of Metaphors Having an IM ......................................................................30Table 10. Examples of Metaphors Not Having an IM ...............................................................31Table 11. Variable Group A .....................................................................................................33Table 12. Variable Group B......................................................................................................34Table 13. Profiles of the 335 Participants..................................................................................37Table 14. Correlations between Non-language-related Variables and IM’s

among All 335 Participants........................................................................................38Table 15. Correlations between Language-related Variables and IM’s

among All 335 Participants........................................................................................38Table 16. Gender and Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s

among All 335 Participants........................................................................................40Table 17. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts ...............41Table 18. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts

Who Had Composed 20 Metaphors...........................................................................42Table 19. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts,

the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts ......................................................................................43Table 20. Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .......................................44Table 21. Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 335 Participants ................................44Table 22. Exposure To the Chinese Writing System and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ..............45Table 23. Chinese Majors in University and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .................................46Table 24. Exposure to Chinese in Life and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ...................................47Table 25. Exposure to Chinese in 1996 and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts .................................48Table 26. Noun Classifiers and IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts

Who Answered the Chinese Questionnaire ................................................................50Table 27. Gender and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ..................................................................50Table 28. Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts ......................51Table 29. Language-related Variables and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’

among All 335 Participants........................................................................................52Table 30. Correlations between ‘Visible Vehicles and Topics’ and IM’s

among All 226 Chi-pts ..............................................................................................53Table 31. Novel Metaphors and Metaphorical Links in Idioms

and Colloquial Cantonese Expressions.......................................................................58

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1. Chinese Characters as Part of an Artistic Work .........................................................19Figure 2. Chinese Characters as the Main Content of an Artistic Work .....................................20Figure 3. Average Numbers of Properties Embodied by the Rocks’ Names ..............................55Figure 4. Differences in Metaphorical Links Between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts ....................56Figure 5. Relation between the Use of IM’s and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ .......................59

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

‘The Lord is my shepherd’ (Psalm 23:1a) is not only a metaphor, but a truth I haveexperienced through His abundant provisions for my work on this thesis. I thank Him for givingme a workable thesis topic and my ability to understand both Chinese and English. I also thankHim for my wonderful committee: Albert Bickford (chair), Steve Marlett, David Marshall andXiao Zhao Huang. They have given me much valuable advice on this thesis and been so loving tome 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 althoughill, 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 fortheir prayer and financial support. I am grateful to Dale Savage for enriching my knowledge ofStatistics, and to those who kindly distributed my questionnaires, particularly Lilian Ho, KittyChow, 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 timeanswering my questionnaires.

vii

ABSTRACT

This thesis presents evidence that there is a positive correlation between the rich visualelements 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 andEnglish questionnaires were distributed to Chinese-speakers and English-speakers in the USA andHong Kong, in which they were requested to compose twenty novel metaphors with given wordsand to name three rocks given the rocks’ descriptions and drawings. Statistical findings from the335 questionnaires returned show that among all participants, those who answered theirquestionnaires in Chinese, those who had had more exposure to the Chinese writing system, andthose who had had more recent exposure to the Chinese writing system used significantly moreimage-mappings in composing metaphors and occasionally in naming rocks. Thus, it is concludedthat the Chinese writing system has an influence on the language use of its users.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The general hypothesis of this research paper is that there is a correlation between awriting system and the pattern of language use of its users. The specific hypothesis is thatbecause of the comparatively more graphic nature of the Chinese writing system, people wholearned to write the Chinese characters first in childhood and people who read and write mostlythe Chinese characters in life tend to use more visual imagery in composing metaphors andnaming objects than those who learned to write English words first in childhood and those whoread and write mostly English words in life.

The Chinese characters studied in this paper are ‘traditional complex characters’ currentlyused 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 aresimplified versions of the former.ii I believed that the above hypotheses were best tested on thetraditional complex characters and their users because such characters have richer visual elementsthan their simplified versions. (See Appendix A for some traditional complex characters andmodern simplified versions.)

Chapter 2 briefly discusses the categorization and pictographic nature of the traditionalcomplex Chinese characters, and the graphic techniques of teaching them, which might influencethe way their users compose metaphors and name objects. Chapter 3 explains how the abovehypotheses were tested in the research and how the resulting data were analyzed. Chapter 4presents and discusses the findings that emerged from the data. Three concerns about theresearch findings are discussed in chapter 5.

In this paper, the terms ‘the Chinese writing system’, ‘the Chinese characters’ and ‘theChinese 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 thegovernment of Hong Kong. Besides this, at present, the languages mostly spoken in Hong Kong are Cantoneseand 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 acharacter are simplified.

2

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 writingsystem of English. Therefore, the primary function of this chapter is to explain the Chinesewriting system to the readers so as to help them understand the significance of the researchfindings in chapter 4. Occasionally, the English writing system is mentioned and compared withthe Chinese writing system. In this chapter, the origin and categorization of the Chinesecharacters (hereafter ‘the characters’) are first explained. Then, the pictographic nature of thecharacters, which is controversial, is discussed. Finally, the reasons why the users of thecharacters may be more visually-oriented than those of the English writing system are given, withparticular 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 toan English word. As an English word is made up of one or more letters written on a line, aChinese character consists of one or more components put together in various ways in a typicallysquare-shaped format. The earliest Chinese writing known to us consists of inscriptions on bonesand shells for purposes of divination in the Shang dynasty (c. 1500-1028 BC). In thedevelopment of the characters, there existed tendencies both to complicate and to simplify, ofwhich the latter was the main current (Li 1993:3). Today, there are two types of Chinesecharacters: the traditional complex characters widely used in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and thesimplified characters used in the PRC. The discussions in this paper refer to the former since theyare the type of characters learned in childhood by all but one or two participants for the researchof 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 muchdisagreement about the sixth category (DeFrances 1984:79) and the fifth one. In some cases, acharacter may seem to belong to one or more categories, or to none of the six categories. How tocategorize 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 categoriesare adapted from the introduction to Wilder 1963 and from DeFrances 1984. Although these sixcategories are not absolute, they should be enough to give the readers of this paper a general ideaof the nature of the characters.

Chinese terms in this paper are written in traditional complex characters, which arefollowed 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 English-speaking countries (McHenry 1992:234). Although the first language of almost all participants for this researchwas 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.

3

myself or the quoted authors. The superscript Arabic numerals are tones of the pronunciations inMandarin.i

The foundation of today’s classification of the characters is a printed posthumous work ofa Chinese scholar Xu Shen (86 BC), the Shou Wen Jie Zi ‘Explaining SimpleCharacters and Compounds’, which was published in about 120 AD. It contains 10,516 standardcharacters arranged under 534 to 544 primitive symbols which are the origin of the 214 radicalsused today to form the characters. All Chinese dictionaries claim to be based upon the ShouWen.

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 othercategories.

2.3.1 Class 1: The wen2 ‘Simple Characters’

Category 1: 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’. Theyare iconic representations of the objects denoted—almost small drawings of the object referred toby the word they represent. Their meanings are conveyed by their forms, which can begraphically mapped onto the visible appearances of the objects denoted. There are 364 of these inthe Shou Wen. For example, the pictograph mu4 ‘eye’ is an iconic representation of an eyeput vertically. In the pictograph zhao3 ‘paw, hand’, the three vertical strokes represent thethree fingers of a paw or hand (Li 1993:462). Another example is men2 ‘door’, the writtenform of which resembles the shape of the traditional two-leaved Chinese door with projecting pinsat top and bottom for hinges. Likewise, the written form of the pictograph kou3 ‘mouth’ isan 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 objectswhile those in category 2 represent more abstract concepts, ideas and affairs. The Shou Wen has125 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 abstractmeaning ‘morning’ is conveyed by the character dan4, in which a pictograph ri4 ‘sun’ iswritten above a line that graphically represents the horizon—it is ‘morning’ when the sun is rightabove the horizon. These six concepts are not visible objects, but are denoted graphically by theircorresponding characters. The positions of the components in such characters were taken intoconsideration when the characters were created. This is unlike anything in English, in whichabstract 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 soon.

4

2.3.2 Class 2: The zi4 ‘Compound Characters’

Category 3: hui4 yi4 ‘Logical Combination’

The third category of characters is the hui4 yi4 ‘logical combination’. Characters inthis category are all compound or multi-component graphs whose meaning is derived bycombining the meanings of their components. There are 1167 of these in the Shou Wen. Anexample 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 iscomposed of two stylized pictographs and the reason for putting the ‘sun’ and the ‘moon’ sideby side to denote ‘bright’ might be considered graphic. This principle may be compared tocombining two or more morphemes in English to make a new word that uniquely denotessomething, but the situations in Chinese and in English are different: (i) The components inChinese are often pictographs, which are absent in English. (ii) Not all logical combinations inChinese have their components put sequentially as in the case of the English words, but may beone inside or above the other. (iii) How the components are put together in a character oftenreflects 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 compoundor form-and-sound combination’. Each character in this category is formed by combining twographs or components (which themselves may contain more than one component), one reflectinga significant component of meaning and the other reflecting the pronunciation. Of these, theShou 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 enlargedby adding a semantic component to give some idea of the category of concepts to which ameaning belongs. For example, the word ran2 ‘to burn’ has acquired the meaning of ‘thus,so’. In order to distinguish the two meanings, the original character was reserved for the newmeaning ‘thus, so’, and a new character ran2 ‘to burn’ was created by adding the semanticcomponent huo3 ‘fire’ to reinforce the original meaning of ‘to burn’. In the compoundcharacter ran2, the component points out the pronunciation of the character, and thecomponent helps classify the character semantically. itself is a stylized pictograph and thefour dots in the lower portion of the characters and represent the burning fire underneaththe objects.

Subcategory B: The enlarged character results from adding a semantic component to aphonetic component. This is similar to those characters in subcategory A, but the phoneticcomponent in this category was never a phonetic loan character or semantic extension in the firstplace. Rather, this phonetic component was specifically used for its sound to combine with thesemantic component. For example, tang2 ‘sugar’ was formed by combining the semanticcomponent mi3 ‘cereal foods’ on the left and the purely phonetic component tang2 on theright.

In many cases the same component, though it may be primarily one or the other, has botha 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 , butalso 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 thesecategories may belong to any one of the four categories above, depending on how a person viewsthe roots and written forms of these characters.

Category 5: jia3 jie4 ‘False Borrowing’

The fifth category of characters is the jia3 jie4 ‘false borrowing’. According toDeFrances (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 aword by the picture of an object whose name resembles the word in sound, as in the case of achildren’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 akind of wheat ‘triticum aestivum’ which was anciently called ‘l «g’) to represent thehomophonous word l«g ‘to come’, a concept which is hard to represent by a picture or adiagram. 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. Acharacter 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 objectwhich has a name in the spoken language but which has no written name, e.g. to take thecharacter for some obsolete utensil arbitrarily to stand for some new idea for which a symbol iswanted. For example, ge1 ‘to sing’ was taken by convention as the character to denote ‘elderbrothers’ (ge 1). The pronunciation of the phonetic component may or may not be the reason forthe borrowing.

Category 6: zhuan3 zhu4 ‘Semantic Transfer or Turning of Interpretation’

The sixth category of characters are the zhuan3 zhu4 ‘semantic transfer or turning ofinterpretation’. Wilder (1963:vi) explains that a character in this category carries a meaning moreextended, or derived, generalized, metaphorical, analogous, adapted, figurative, or even invertedand opposite to the original meaning of this character. For example, the original function of thepictograph bu3 seems to show a horizontal and a perpendicular line from the lines appearing ina heated tortoise shell, that is, what the diviner consults; then by extension this pictograph nowdenotes ‘the diviner’ or ‘one who consults the lines’. Another example: wang3 is apictograph denoting a fishing net. By extension, this word (and its character) now is also used todenote 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 isaccordingly 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 anold 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 intensifythe meaning, e.g. yao1 ‘the finest thread’ is doubled as i to denote an almost invisiblefilament, or (ii) to express plurality or a group of the object denoted, e.g. mu4 ‘wood’ isdoubled as lin2 to denote ‘many trees, green, many’ and trebled as sen1 to denote ‘forest’.(Characters like these are sometimes grouped under category 1: ‘pictograph or imitativesymbol’.)

2.3.4 Summary

Some principles of forming the characters are graphic-oriented and some are not. Theforms of pictographs in category 1 are closely related to the meanings they convey, but someother characters were created by adding semantic components to their phonetic components, sotheir 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 betraced. Besides this, different linguists perceive the characters differently, thus making theclassification more inconsistent. For example, the characters and in 2.3.3 can beconsidered pictographs, but Wilder, for one, does not put them under category 1.

From the above discussions, two differences between the Chinese writing system and theEnglish one are clear: (i) the Chinese writing system contains many graphs originating frompictures while the English one does not; (ii) the components of a character usually are not puttogether arbitrarily, and in many cases one or more components refer to the physical appearanceof the object that the character denotes. This is especially true in the case of pictographs andsimple indicative symbols. The letters and morphemes of a written English word, however, arealways 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 stillpictographic by nature? Although there is a popular belief that Chinese characters are mostlypictographs or ideograms and thus the Chinese writing system as a whole is pictographic, somelinguists have suggested otherwise.

So far, no one has been able to give a definite answer to the question above. Theapplication of the principles governing character formation to the analysis of specific charactersare 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 clueto its correct pronunciation.

7

1984:85). These two specialists represent two extremes in the approach to the characters. Creelemphasizes the semantic aspect, Boodberg the phonetic. A specialist in Chinese characters whomay be considered on the side of Creel writes (Diogenes 1954:97):

The Indo-European languages are composed of words which one arrives at only bythe progressive synthesis of letters and syllables which are directed to the ear.These words have no autonomous existence whatsoever, subjugated, as theyalways 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, thatis, 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 ofwhich 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 aphonetic writing system. It cannot be classified with alphabets such as Spanish and Germanbecause 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 syllabicwriting 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 thecompound characters. Unlike most vowels and syllables of the English words, the phoneticcomponents 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’ becausetheir pronunciation when standing alone gives some indication of the pronunciation of thecompound characters. In the example above, the compound character and its phoneticcomponent are pronounced the same, although their meanings are different. However, this doesnot mean that the meaning of a phonetic component is always irrelevant to that of the compoundcharacter (this is discussed later with Table 5).

Now let us look at some of DeFrances’ arguments (1984) concerning the nature of thecharacters, summarized below:

(i) DeFrances’ first argument is about the faster increase in semantic-phoneticcompounds among the characters. He first offers the data in Table 1(1984:84).i The first columngives 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 inthe 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 threeprinciples 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, themodern 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 IndicativeSymbol

20 (2%) 125 (1%) 107 (1%)

(2) LogicalCombination

396 (41%) 1167 (13%) 740 (3%)

}+/-1500 (3%)

(3) Semantic-phoneticCompound

334 (34%) 7697 (82%) 21,810 (93%) 47,141 (97%)

Total 977 9353 23,265 48,641

(ii) DeFrances’ second argument is about the limited number of non-phonetic charactersin 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 charactersand the data from the great Kang Xi dictionary of 1917. DeFrances points out that phonetics andsemantic-phonetic compounds far outnumber non-phonetic characters in the inventory ofcharacters, 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-phoneticCompound

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 acompound character in predicting the meaning or pronunciation of the whole compound. Withreference 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 tableshowing the figures of the traditional complex characters. The last column is from another table showing thefigures of the simplified characters.

9

compounds, the phonetic component is far better in predicting pronunciation than is the semanticcomponent in predicting meaning. He believes that “since speakers of Chinese can derivemeaning from sound, the phonetic element, abysmally bad though it is in Chinese as compared toother systems of writing, emerges as by far the more powerful factor in determining the meaningof 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 CharactersA. pictographicB. simple indicativeC. compound indicative

1.3%0.4%1.3%

_____3.0%

II. Radical plus Phonetic CharactersA. Semantic Aspect

1. identity in meaning between radical and compoundi

2. clear but imprecise relationship between radical and compound3. less clear and even less precise relationship4. no or obscure relationship

B. Phonetic Aspect1. complete identity between phonetic and compound2. identity except for tones3. useful similarity in segmental phonemes4. no useful similarity in segmental phonemes

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 Chinesewriting system are pictures divorced from sound, and that the meanings of the symbols are readilydiscernible even when the symbols are conventionalized or stylized in form. In his opinion, “theChinese writing system is an orthography in which the relation of sign to meaning is mediatedprimarily through a sound system based on a defective inventory of syllabic signs and quitesecondarily 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 ofmany characters. He may be right in this aspect, but the frequent use of the phonetics and theirusefulness 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 asphonetic as the English writing system. Even if all the figures in Tables 1-3 are accurate (differentscholars may provide different figures, depending on how they analyze the characters), they stilldo not show the real presence of the pictographic or visual elements in the inventory ofcharacters. The following are some reasons to believe that the Chinese writing system is not onlymore pictographic than the English one by nature (as discussed in the previous section), but it alsohas 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 ahigher percentage than the 3-10% presented by DeFrances in Table 1. The percentage in Table 1was 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 40,000characters. Of these 34,000 are words that denote obsolete items and dialectical equivalents; 2000more are surnames and rarely used characters, leaving 4000 that are in common use. Of these3000 are all that need to be studied for etymological purposes. The 3000 ancient primitives arestill the most useful characters; anyone who gets a mastery of them and their combinations willhave a magnificent vocabulary for all departments of literature. The number of pictographsamong 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 characterhas a component that retains some graphic elements, no matter how stylized the component hasbecome. Another book published in Beijing (Li 1993) also explains the etymology of 500commonly used characters with pictures. So there are reasons to believe that the characters fordaily use are rich in visual elements.

(ii) The second reason is that many semantic-phonetic compounds have pictographiccomponents in them. The phonetic components in many compounds are pictographs or made upof pictographic components. For example, the phonetic component huang2 ‘yellow’ in thecharacter huang2 ‘sulfur’ not only can stand by itself as a character, but it also originated froma pictograph. Its primitive form is , which symbolizes a man standing with a jade stone hangingon his bosom (Li 1993:137). It is doubtful if many phonetic components were created purely asphonetic symbols. Instead character-creators were likely to choose phonetic components fromthe few hundred pictographs in stock when creating new compounds. Thus there are morepictographic 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 isanother reason to believe that the Chinese writing system is more pictographic than whatDeFrances suggests. This is true in two aspects:

First, although characters in categories 2 and 3 are not labeled as pictographs, theformation of such characters can be fairly visually-oriented. Simple indicative symbols, forexample, are graphic representations of the concepts, ideas and affairs that they denote. Thus tosome extent, they rely on the positioning of their components to convey their meanings. Considerthe simple indicative symbol dan4 ‘morning’ again. This non-pictographic character iscomposed of the pictograph ri4 ‘sun’ written above a horizontal line, which depicts the sunabove the horizon in the morning. Clearly, the positioning of these two components is deliberateand visually-oriented.

The logic of positioning the components in semantic-phonetic compounds can also bevisually-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. Table4 shows examples of these.

Table 4. Visual Arrangement of Components in Semantic-Phonetic Compounds

Compound SemanticComponent

Phonetic Component Possible Reason for the Arrangement ofthe Components

tai2 ‘typhoon’ feng1 ‘wind’ tai2 ‘platform’ The ‘wind’ carries a ‘platform’ on itsback to denote ‘a strong wind.’

yuan2 ‘round’ wei2

‘enclosure’ i yuan2

‘personnel’The is encircled by the ‘enclosure’ toemphasize ‘roundness.’

li2 ‘to plough’ niu2 ‘cow’ ii li4 ‘to cut grain,sharp’

To plough, the ‘cow’ carries part of theequipment for ‘cutting grain’ on its backand pulls it along the field.

wen2 ‘to hear’ er3 ‘ear’ men2 ‘door’ An ‘ear’ in the ‘doorway’ is to hear.

In Table 4, although the character cannot visually depict the concept ‘to hear’, thecreator of this character probably tried to help the readers visualize the concept of ‘to hear’ bycarefully putting the components in their ‘right’ places with the ear visually inside the doorway.Wilder (1963:vi) gives a similar example: wen4 ‘to ask’ has men2 ‘door’ for the phoneticand kou3 ‘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 doorcannot 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 thecharacter yuan2 ‘round’ in Table 1, always encloses another component, as in guo2

‘country’ and qui2 ‘to imprison, to take into custody’. The position of this component in acharacter is related not only to its form, but also its meaning. So although semantic-phoneticcompounds are not pictographs, the forms and positions of their components to some extent canbe used iconically to denote visible concepts.

Second, the meaning of a compound is conveyed through the images evoked by individualcomponents of that compound in the minds of the readers. Although this is not equal to directiconicity, there is a close relation between the images evoked by the components and the image ofthe 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 whichgraphically 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 thecharacter for ‘plough’ as that animal was used for pulling the plough, the use of which was a necessary step beforereaping.

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-phoneticcompound consists of a semantic component cao3 ‘grass, vegetation’ and a phoneticcomponent ya2 ‘tooth’. It is unlikely to have been created without a consideration of theimages evoked by the components. The images of ‘grass’ and of a ‘tooth’ (which looks like abud) are combined to represent the idea of ‘to sprout, to bud’. Therefore, the logic of choosingcomponents, whether semantic or phonetic, for creating a compound can be fairly visual even inphonetic components.

(iv) The fourth reason to believe that the Chinese writing is more pictographic than whatDeFrances suggests is that the pronunciations of the phonetics are not always the only reason forusing these phonetics to create semantic-phonetic compounds. Besides the images, the semanticelements of the phonetic components of many compounds must have been considered when suchcompounds were created. There are a few hundred Chinese characters in the inventory that canbe used as phonetic components (see ‘phonetics’ in Table 2) and many of them arehomophonous. For example, the syllable yi4 can be represented by twelve different characterseach having its own written form (DeFrances 1984:97). Which one to use to create a semantic-phonetic compound cannot be totally arbitrary. To assign a sound for an idea or object which bynature has no sound of its own may be arbitrary, but the semantic aspect of the chosen phoneticcomponent cannot be totally irrelevant to the overall meaning of the compound. Table 5 showsfive examples of semantic-phonetic compounds, the phonetic components of which were probablyselected with reference to their meanings.i The third column shows lists of phonetics which soundidentical in Mandarin except for their tones,ii and which could have been chosen to compose theircorresponding compounds. The rimes of these phonetics are identical to those of theircorresponding compounds in Mandarin. The fifth column gives the possible reasons for selectingthose phonetics and not others.

These examples show that semantic-phonetic compounds are not totally phonetic. Thesemantic elements as well as the images evoked by the phonetic components of many compoundsstill play an important part in reflecting the meanings of such compounds. If the phoneticcomponent of a compound has both semantic and phonetic functions, one may even say that thiscompound as a whole ‘weighs’ more semantic than phonetic. Besides this, some of the semantic-phonetic compounds, like shi1 ‘lion’ above, may actually be categorized as logicalcombinations, 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 beencreated 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 thecompounds. Tones in different Chinese dialects are different, e.g. there are four tones in Mandarin and six (somesay nine) in Cantonese and Ancient Chinese (McHenry 1992:234). The ancient tones of these phoneticcomponents might be very different from their modern Mandarin tones.

13

Table 5. Semantic-Phonetic Compounds and the Selection of Their Phonetic Components

Semantic-phoneticCompound

SemanticComponent

Some PossiblePhonetics that couldhave been Chosen

Actual PhoneticSelected

Possible Reason for theSelection

1. xi1‘clear(usually referringto somethingvisible)’

1. ri4 ‘sun’ 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 ‘toseparate, toanalyze’

1. Under the ‘sun’, it iseasier to see and toanalyze,’ and thus itis ‘clear’.

2. si4 ‘a groupof four horses’

2. ma3

‘horse’2. si4

‘four’2. ‘Four’ plus ‘horse’

mean ‘a group offour horses’.

3. shi1 ‘corpse’ i 3. shi1

‘corpse’

si4 ‘four’ si3 ‘to die,

dead, death’ si4 ‘temple’ si1 ‘private’ si1 ‘to take

charge of, tomanage’

si1 ‘refined,gentle’

si1 ‘to think’ si1 ‘silk’ si4 ‘wantonly’

3. si3 ‘todie, dead,death’

3. A ‘corpse’ which is‘dead’ is a ‘corpse’.

i In this compound character, the two components seem to have both semantic and phonetic functions.

14

4. shi2 ‘eclipse,to lose (money),to erode’

4. chong2

‘worm’4. shi2 ‘to

eat’4. An ‘eclipse’ is like a

leaf being eatenslowly by a worm.

5. shi1 ‘lion’ 5. (a radicalnotpronounced)‘of theanimalclass’

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’

5. shi1

‘teacher,master’

5. ‘Lions’ are‘masters’ amonganimals.

To conclude, the pictographic elements in the characters must be more than whatDeFrances suggests in his arguments. The 97% of semantic-phonetic components in the inventorydoes not mean that the Chinese writing system is 97% phonetic and 3% non-phonetic. Visualelements are not confined to the pictographs. There are rich visual elements in all categories ofcharacters, and many phonetic components are characters originating from pictographs. It shouldalso be noted that despite the rapid increase in semantic-phonetic compounds throughout Chinesehistory, 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 maywonder why DeFrances says that “virtually all new characters were based on the semantic-phonetic principle” (1984:84). The Chinese have never ceased to use their pictographic principleto create characters, or become less visually-oriented when creating various compoundcharacters. 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 visibleproperties of objects like shape and size than to other properties like sound and weight, resultingin 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 theusers unconsciously depict this influence in their use of the language.

Besides the visual elements in the Chinese writing system itself, the graphic techniques forteaching the characters may also reinforce the influence above, resulting in the users’ tendency touse 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 arefounded upon the following factors:

(i) As even DeFrances admits, the inventories of both syllabic signs and radicals in theChinese writing system are ‘defective’ (1984:129). They are defective in that they arenot as well organized as the English alphabet. A substantial number of ‘visually-orientedmemory 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 originatedfrom pictographs or contain pictographic elements. English words by nature do not havethe same potential. These characters naturally draw the learners’ attention more to thesemantic function rather than to the phonetic function of their components. A graphicapproach which emphasizes mappings between the forms of the characters and theirmeanings seems a natural choice to learn such characters.

(iii) There is a popular belief that all Chinese characters are pictographs or at least highlypictorial. This belief may not be totally correct, but it inevitably influences the way mostlearners 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 orto memorize the characters.

(i) The first factor is that the phonetics of the characters do not help much in learning theforms of the characters. As a result, learners must memorize the whole forms of the severalthousand characters in addition to the forms of their individual components. DeFrances points outthat “some characters which lack a phonetic element or have phonetic elements whosepronunciation is not useful in determining the pronunciation of the whole character must belearned by brute force mainly by memorizing the total configuration or by handling the graphiccomponents 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 thanto 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 usedin creating characters, they have limited help in learning the characters. The phonetic of a givencharacter may be helpful in guessing its pronunciation (though not always 100% accurately), but itdoes not work the opposite way from its pronunciation to its written form. In English, one whoknows 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 itswritten form by hearing its pronunciation, even if she knows the few hundred Chinese radicals andphonetics because the possible combinations of these radicals and phonetics are far morenumerous than those of the letters in English. If the Chinese phonetics are compared to theEnglish letters, then the Chinese learners have a few more hundred ‘letters’ to learn in addition tothe few hundred radicals. Since many of these phonetics are homophonous, in order to learn themand to be able to identify them in the compounds, the learners need graphic techniques tomemorize their written forms visually.

(ii) The second factor is that such a graphic approach is encouraged by Chinese primersand reference books on the Chinese characters. It is commonly found in such books that theetymology 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 therelations between their forms and their pronunciations. The following example is from Wilder’sChinese primer.i This English book was probably written for English-speaking learners of Chinesecharacters. Although it was not meant to teach Chinese characters to native Chinese speakers, theway Wilder explains the components of this character graphically is similar to that a Chineseteacher (in Hong Kong) does to her students of Chinese characters. In this example, even thephonetic component is explained with visual imagery. On the last line of the paragraph, Wilderalso 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 whencarried looks like a moving bridge, this may be the reason forusing this phonetic in sedan chair.

A similar graphic approach is used by the book published in Beijing (Li 1993:336). Thisbook traces the roots of 500 commonly used Chinese characters. Written in English, it wasprobably meant to be a reference book for English-speaking learners of the characters. Althoughit was not primarily written for native Chinese speakers, Li’s approach of mapping pictures ontodifferent components of the characters is commonly found in elementary Chinese classes fornative 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 thedrawing 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 beclassified 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, itis 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 toexplain the meaning of a word, e.g. to show the drawing or photograph of a piano beside theword ‘piano’ to help the learners associate the word with the thing denoted. This type of visualaid is common in both Chinese and English. However, there is something else in the case of theChinese characters. A whole character and its components are often explained graphically, but inEnglish, seldom is a word broken into morphemes and each presented with an image, then themeanings conveyed by the images combined to teach the word’s meaning. For example, onegenerally would not, in an English primer, see a picture of ‘rain’ and a picture ‘bow’ to teach theword ‘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 originalmeaning was ‘piglet.’ It wascomposed of , pig, and , meatin oracle bone inscriptions, while inbronze inscriptions, , hand wasadded, symbolizing a pig raised tobe eaten.

This mnemonic approach applied to the characters is also different from that used to helpmemorize the pronunciation of an English word. For example, to help memorize how the Englishword ‘pictograph’ sounds, one might create a sentence like ‘I prefer pickles to grass,’ but suchstrategies to help memorize spellings of the English words are rare. In contrast, mnemonics tohelp memorize the forms of Chinese characters are much more common than those to helpmemorize the pronunciations of the characters. Therefore, learners of the characters may easilyfind their minds filled with images and forms of the characters. Having a good visual memorymay be crucial to learning the characters well.

Along with the common practice of mapping pictures onto the characters, thepronunciations of the phonetics are played down, and connecting the phonetic components andthe pronunciations of the characters is usually not emphasized in the Chinese primers, which leadsto a predominantly graphic approach to learn the characters. That a phonetic component in acompound character is superior in predicting pronunciation than is the semantic component inpredicting meaning (as DeFrances says) is one thing. Whether the learners actually learn the 895phonetics 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 phoneticcomponents. This is because the phonetics are not reliable for identifying the sounds of thecharacters, especially when some phonetics were chosen in ancient China in various dialects whichare 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 thatof the character whose sound it indicates.” Sometimes the onset of the syllable of one of thecomponents in a characters is combined with the rime of the syllable of the phonetic component tomake the sound of the whole character. Sometimes, the sound of the phonetic component is thesound of the whole character. Sometimes, there is no way to guess the onset of a syllable fromany of the components of a character. As a result, the learners cannot rely much on the phoneticsto help them learn the characters. The meaning, the form and the pronunciation of a character aretherefore learned simultaneously but separately, and usually only the meaning and the form maybe 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, thereis usually no explanation how the pronunciation of that character is related to the pronunciation ofits 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 thecharacters as pictures among native and non-native learners, thus indirectly promoting a graphicapproach of learning the characters. Such games, sometimes called deng1 mi2 ‘lanternpuzzles’, are often built upon the graphic forms of the characters. A puzzle like the following isfound 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 aboutanything under the sun, such as ‘wind and flower’. Each of the four words in this idiom iswritten with a character that is the answer to one line in the puzzle:

feng1 ‘wind’ (a semantic-phonetic compound, but close to a simple indicativesymbol)

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 thepuzzle 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 firstcharacter. The character feng2 ‘female phoenix’ is composed of niao3 ‘bird’ with a littlehorizontal stroke above it, both of which are covered by another component whichgraphically symbolizes the feather and the long tail of the phoenix. In the puzzle, the phrase ‘hasflown away’ sounds similar to ‘fly bird’ in Cantonese, so it implies that the component has tobe 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 inwhich 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 Chinesepuzzle above is different in that it takes the semantic aspect of the written components and theirpositions 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 thispaper (and I myself) grew up.

(iv) The Chinese art of calligraphy is another factor for the popular use of a graphicapproach of learning the characters. It fuels the perception and appreciation of the characters aspictures among native and non-native learners. The characters are commonly admired as artpieces, and there are numerous ways to ‘draw’ them. English calligraphy usually does not standby itself as the main content of a painting, but Chinese calligraphy often does. Chinese calligraphyis 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 calligraphycompetitions in schools of different levels. Learning the characters and learning artistichandwriting—a visual skill—go together. Figure 1 (Ch’en 1966:255) shows a portion of a Chineseartistic work in which the Chinese characters are an important part. In Figure 2 (Ch’en1966:105), the characters are the main content of the artistic work, which was originally a letterof 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 Chinesedictionaries, 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 aphonetic index,i because they use the semantic classification, not the phonetic classification of thecharacters (see Appendix B for samples of dictionary indexes). Even DeFrances is surprised thatthe 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-phoneticcompounds in the inventory. Because of this non-phonetic classification, in order to look up acharacter in a dictionary, one has to know its basic meaning, its radical and the number of strokesof that radical (sometimes of the whole character). Knowing its pronunciation hardly helps in theprocess.

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 knowits spelling and that such is visual. This is true, but in the case of the Chinese characters, thepronunciation of a character is not crucial to looking it up. The learner relies more heavily on hermemory of the visual form of the character than an English learner on the spelling of a word. InEnglish, 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 ifone knows the pronunciation of a character, it will still be difficult for her to figure out the rightphonetic 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 characterswhich 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 dictionaryto another. According to DeFrances (1984:92), the arrangement of characters into some sort oforder was not accomplished until about 120 AD. At that time, Xu Shen compiled an etymologicaldictionary in which he arranged 9353 characters under 540 semantic keys (or ‘significs’ or‘radicals’). The later dictionaries reclassified the characters under 214 radicals. Theclassification 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 250radicals, in addition to the traditional 214. Each classification is a haphazard hodgepodge ofconcepts ranging from the specific to the general: mankind, ten, knife, mountain, step with the leftfoot, water, fire, tongue, insect, mineral, door, wind, high, ghost, bird, dragon, and so on. Theseradical systems constitute a Procrustean bed into which all Chinese characters have been forced bydictionary-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 islikely to be found in a dictionary. The deficiencies of semantic classification can be illustrated bythe fact that a popular student dictionary contains a ‘List of Characters Having ObscureRadicals’ that includes one twelfth of its 7773 graphs. Therefore, the use of a Chinese dictionaryis 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. Havinggood 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 areforced and sometimes arbitrarily allotted under one or another key in a dictionary. DeFrancesgives 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 thetwo, as there is supposed to be between a radical and the characters subsumed under it. Thecharacter is written as —that is without the dot—when it occurs as the radical component of acharacter, and in this form it is identical with wang2 ‘king’, the origin of which is obscure.Apparently the character is placed under the radical because of their identity in shape, notbecause of any semantic relationship” (1984:95). If the learner can memorize visually whatcomponents the characters have, she may use the dictionaries more efficiently. This example alsoshows that even the dictionary-makers do form-matching not sound-matching among thecharacters. 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 todo many visual exercises like memorizing the forms of the characters, mapping pictures ontocharacters, etc. Learning the English writing system also requires one to use sight, but with thephonetic help of the letters, the burden to memorize the spellings of the words is lighter. Owing toits comparatively more phonetic nature, the English writing system is not usually learned with agraphic approach. On the contrary, the rich visual elements in the Chinese writing system makesit somehow necessary to use a graphic approach to learn it, or at least it directly encourages thisapproach.

The Chinese writing system and the English one are by nature different. From the creationof many characters and compounds to the popular ways of learning the characters, more visualimagery 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 whogrew up writing and reading the characters. It is claimed in this paper that they tend to be morevisually-oriented in perceiving things in the world, and that this can be reflected in the greater useof visual imagery in metaphors and names. This does not mean that they do not analyze or studythe invisible properties of objects and abstract ideas, or that they are phonetically insensitive, butthat they have a higher tendency to make visual associations among different things than peoplewho grew up writing and reading the English writing system.

22

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

According to Whorf, “every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, inwhich are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not onlycommunicates, 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 alanguage may influence the way its users notice or neglect types of relations and phenomena in theworld. 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-orientedthan those who did not. The primary aim of the research in this paper is therefore to find out ifusers of the Chinese writing system are significantly more visually-oriented when they relatedifferent things in the world. The following sections explain the methods chosen for theresearch, the design of the questionnaire, the guidelines for tabulating the research data, and thestatistical 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 usedbecause, as Lakoff (1980:3) emphasizes, “the way we think, what we experience, and what we doevery 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 ornot they are conscious of using metaphors in their languages. Therefore, the metaphor-composingexercises would not favor either group of speakers in the research because they all know how tocompose metaphors.

Besides this, metaphors “are examples par excellence of cultural models ... by their verynature as projections of secondary onto primary subjects, [they] connect separate ideas into singleconcepts” (McNeill 1987:204). So the way a person composes a metaphor by mapping asecondary subject onto a primary one may reflect the way she notices relations in the world. Thisdoes not mean that she is totally ignorant of other relations, but the language she uses somehowpredisposes her to a certain type or types of relations over others. One specific aim of thisresearch 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 systeminfluences this variation.

3.3 Reasons for Using Naming Exercises

Naming visible objects was the secondary test used in the research. By analyzing thenames given by the participants to visible objects, one may find out whether the participantsfocused more on the visible properties than the invisible properties of the objects. This methodwas secondary because it did not directly test how the participants related different things in theworld since usually only one thing was involved in a naming process. However, a name may stillindirectly reflect how a person relates different things in the world if the name itself is ametaphorical expression. For example, naming a rock ‘X-Rock’ does not involve anymetaphorical link between the rock and another thing in the world, but naming it ‘Fish Bone’

23

because the rock resembles a fish bone in shape, or naming it ‘Anchor’ because it is as heavy asan anchor are results of metaphorical links. In the name ‘Fish Bone’, the metaphorical linkbetween 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 Englishversion), which aimed to find out the frequencies of using visual imagery—specifically, image-mappingsi—of different language groups in composing metaphors and naming objects.

The questionnaire had three versions: two Chinese versions (with and without nounclassifiers) and one English version. The Chinese versions were written with traditional complexcharacters with which all Chinese-writing participants were familiar. The three versions allowedany participant who knew either Chinese or English to participate. Chinese participants whoknew both languages (‘Chinese bilinguals’) answered either a Chinese questionnaire or anEnglish one. They chose the language which they felt more comfortable to answer. If they chosethe Chinese one, they answered in Chinese and were requested to write traditional complexcharacters; if English, they answered in English. The two Chinese versions were randomly givento those who chose to answer a Chinese questionnaire. Whichever version a participant got, sheanswered only one questionnaire.

3.5 Contents of the Questionnaire

The contents of the three versions were the same, with only two differences (explained in3.5.5 and 3.5.6). Each questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first two were metaphor-composing exercises, the third rock-naming exercises, and the fourth questions about theparticipants’ 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 metaphorii consists of three elements: (i)the topic of the metaphor, which is the concept to be presented in terms of something else; (ii) thevehicle 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 andvehicle are deemed to be similar. This common ground is a two-way ‘interanimation’ betweenthe 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 oncertain types of relations among things in the world.

In this section, the participants were requested to compose ten novel metaphors with tendifferent words given as metaphoric vehicles. The topic of each metaphor was freely determinedby the participants. They were requested not to consult anybody or any literature whencomposing metaphors. This ensured that the metaphors would be original and could moreaccurately 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 ametaphor’s.

24

metaphors’ and ‘idioms’ were lower because they were discouraged to copy metaphors fromdictionaries. They were also requested to give a main reason for each metaphor to help makeclear the common ground of the metaphor and thus to avoid misinterpretation.

There were several requirements used to choose the words to be presented to theparticipants, that is, the vehicles of the metaphors. They needed to denote things with adequatevisible and invisible properties. These ten vehicles were chosen to cover as many properties aspossible, namely, visible properties like shape, color, intensity of light, movement, orientation andlocation, and invisible properties like character or personality, sound, smell, flavor, weight, textureand 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 byboth Chinese-writing participants and English-writing ones; for example, a cuisine well-known inone 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 thepercentage of image-mappings between participants who learned to write Chinese first inlife or who had had more exposure to the Chinese writing system, and those who learnedto 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 inopposition to the null hypothesis that there was a statistically significant mean differencebetween these two groups of participants.

The Chinese-writing group was expected to have an overall higher percentage of image-mappings in their metaphors than the English-writing group. By analyzing the common groundsof the metaphors and the properties of the metaphoric topics, the two hypotheses could becompared.

3.5.2 Section II: Composing Novel Metaphors with Given Topics

Section II resembled Section I in purpose, format and hypothesis. The main differencewas that ten topics were given and the vehicles freely determined by the participants. Theprinciples 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 intelligibleto all participants were chosen as topics, namely, ‘my examination’ and ‘my life’. Theparticipants were free to make metaphorical links between the given topics and any objects, ideasor concepts. By analyzing the properties of the vehicles and the common grounds of themetaphors, 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 createnovel names, which had to be as short as possible, for three imaginary rocks from outer spacewithout consulting anybody or any literature, based on descriptions of the rocks and black-and-white 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 thedate of arrival from space. Rocks are common in all cultural environments, so no participantswould 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 couldbe more original and reflect more clearly any tendency of the participants to focus on just one or asmall group of properties. These exercises could thus indirectly test the hypotheses in sections Iand II.

3.5.4 Section IV: Questions on Personal Particulars

Besides basic information like age and sex, this section specifically asked about thelanguage backgrounds of the participants, namely, their first language, second language(s) thatthey had learned, language that they first learned to write in life, language(s) that they learned towrite 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 questionswere used to group the participants for statistical tests to see what factors most affected theresults 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 versioneach had a noun classifier, and those in the other version did not. The participants were not toldof this difference.

According to McNeill (1987:201), noun classifiers categorize how people interact with theobjects in the world. If a classifier is sufficiently transparent and its associated meaning isprojected onto reality, speakers might think there are categories of objects in reality organized interms of how people interact with them. For example, in Gilbertese there is a classifier ‘kai’ usedfor trees, plants, land sections, and fish hooks. This category represents objects that are essentialfor life. In English there is a very limited noun classification system that reveals a separation ofman 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 transparentand projected onto reality English speakers might habitually think that two completely differentorders of beings exists: humanity and everything else. So if a language has noun classifiers, theymight 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 thatthese classifiers usually modify.i Not all noun classifiers can be translated literally; they coulddenote ‘a piece of, a time of, a head of, a cup of, etc’. Which one to use with a particular noundepends on properties of the noun. Suggested reasons for grouping those nouns under theirclassifiers are also given in the table.

i The use of certain noun classifiers may be slightly different between Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-

speakers, 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 andhave 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

7. zhi1 ‘unit’ Mouse, cow, rooster, dinosaur Animals, particularly smaller animals

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 objectswhich 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 nounclassifiers in one of the Chinese versions was to test if the participants would use more image-mappings in composing metaphors under the influence of these noun classifiers. The versionwithout noun classifiers was the control.

Tables 7 and 8 show the vehicles in section I and topics in section II, the noun classifiersused 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 themwere used more than once in the questionnaire, namely, tou2, ge4 and duo3. This showsthat some of the given vehicles and topics are by nature related in the Chinese minds. Visuallikeness seems to be one of the criteria for grouping nouns under noun classifiers in Chinese. Forexample, both ‘ghost’ and ‘that robot’ usually go with the noun classifier ge4, possiblybecause of their resemblance in appearance. And although duo3 is primarily a classifier forflowers, it is now also used for ‘cloud’, possibly because a cloud looks like a flower floating inthe 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 withall 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 theirmetaphors, the use of two Chinese versions was designed to test for this influence.

Table 7. Noun Classifiers Used in Section I

Given Vehicle Classifier Other Nouns Modified by the SameClassifier

1. ‘fire’ No classifier needed

2. ‘rooster’ tou2 ‘head’ i Pig, lion, cow, tiger

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’ dao4 (sometimes tiao2

‘stripe’ is used)Snake, bridge, road

9. ‘lion’ tou2 ‘head’ Pig, cow, tiger, rooster

10. ‘cloud’ duo3 ‘bloom’ Flower

i Another noun classifier zhi1 ‘unit (small animal)’ can be used for ‘rooster’.

28

Table 8. Noun Classifiers Used in Section II

Given Topic Classifier Other Nouns Modified by the Same Classifier

1. ‘my Persian cat’ No classifier neededi

2. ‘my examination’ Same as (1)

3. ‘that road’ tiao2 ‘stripe’ Snake, rainbow

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 spokenMandarin)

3.5.6 The Difference between the Chinese and English Versions

There was one difference between the two Chinese versions and the English version. Inthe Chinese versions, the discovery date of Rock #3 was given as July 1, 1997, the day China wasto take over Hong Kong from Britain. In the English version, the date was July 4, 1997, the nextIndependence Day of USA. These dates were chosen because they were believed to be relevantto most participants, so that they might use the given date to name Rock #3 if they wished to. Itwas assumed that Chinese bilinguals who answered the English version would know thesignificance of July 4. Both dates were presented as if they referred to past events, though theywere 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 incomposing 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 metaphoricmappings—by mapping the structure of one domain onto the structure of another.But the domains are mental images. Image structure includes both part-wholestructure and attribute structure. In images, part-whole relations are such as thosebetween 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 versusdiscrete, open-ended versus completed, repetitive versus not repetitive, briefversus completed. It is the existence of such structure within our conceptualimages that permits one image to be mapped onto another by virtue of theircommon structure... the proliferation of detail in the images limits image-mappingsto highly specific cases. That is why we refer to them as ‘one-shot’ ... One-shotimage-mappings characteristically do not involve the mapping of ... rich knowledgeand inferential structure ... A source image [= vehicle] can be mapped onto a targetdomain [= topic] which contains an image, and might also be mapped onto a targetdomain 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 thedomain of thought.

The definition, identification and categorization of IM’s in this paper are based onLakoff’s explanation of IM's above. With reference to the questionnaire, two points are worthnoting:

(i) A given vehicle that denotes something with visible properties does not necessarily makethat metaphor an image metaphor unless a visible property of the given vehicle forms thecommon 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 ananimal with visible properties, it is an invisible property, the character, of the lion and thatof the husband that forms the common ground. Therefore, this metaphor does not have anIM. The ten given words in section I of the questionnaire, though they all denoted visiblethings, would not automatically stimulate more IM’s. The participants were free to selectany property of the visible things for mapping.

(ii) As in the Lakoff’s ‘lightning’ example above, a given topic that denotes somethingwithout 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 metaphorsthat had an IM.

3.6.2 Principles for Tabulating the Metaphors

The following principles were used for tabulating the metaphors composed by theparticipants:

(i) A metaphor was counted as having an IM whenever a visible property of a vehicle wasmapped onto that of a topic, or vice versa. A metaphor like ‘ her face is (like) a sunflowerbecause it is round’ clearly had an IM because the visible shape of the ‘sunflower’ andthat of ‘her face’ formed the common ground. (Answers provided by the participants areunderlined 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 participantsare some examples.

(a) ‘ A cheerful friend is (like) a sunflower because (he/she) brightens up the day.’ This metaphorseemed to have an IM because of the word ‘brightens’ which denotes the visible brightness ofsomething. However, ‘brightens up the day’ is an idiom which may be replaced by ‘cheersme up’ here. It is not the ‘brightness’ of a sunflower and that of a cheerful friend whichformed the common ground of this metaphor, but the participant’s feeling about a cheerfulfriend and a sunflower, that is, both of these delighted the participant. Therefore, metaphorslike 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’ whichformed the common ground, but the ‘wealth’ of the bank and the ‘rich flavor’ of the cakewhich were invisible properties. Therefore, metaphors like this were not counted as having anIM.

(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 thiswere 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 themetaphorical link here was not based on a visible property common to ‘my mind and ‘mycomputer’, 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 anIM. 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) Metaphors not explained with a reason were not counted. A small number of metaphorswere explained with more than one reason. It was assumed that the main reason wasmore likely to come to the participants’ minds first, so only the first reason given wascounted. In the rock-naming exercises, all reasons were counted.

(iii) Some participants, instead of composing metaphors, wrote descriptive statements aboutthe topics, like ‘that plant is (like) tall because it reaches the roof of the house.’Statements like this were not counted as metaphors.

(iv) By mistake, a small number of participants used the given topics in section II as vehicles tocompose metaphors. For example, in the metaphor ‘my Persian cat is (like) my wifebecause she wears mink all the time,’ the vehicle ‘my wife’ was supposed to be used todescribe ‘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 becausethe image of the cat was mapped onto the wife. (This metaphor might have been morenatural if it had been ‘my wife is (like) my Persian cat because she wears mink all thetime.’) Although unnatural, metaphors like this still contained a metaphorical link andwere counted as qualified metaphors.

3.7 Statistical Analyses

3.7.1 Grouping of the Variables

The variables in the whole questionnaire were divided into two groups, group A andgroup B. Data for group A had to do with personal characteristics of the participants; they wereacquired from section IV of the questionnaire on personal particulars. Those for group B had todo 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 namesof 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 thequestionnaire; they denoted something which had visible properties. Likewise, ‘visible vehicles’were vehicles provided by the participants in section II and they denoted something which hadvisible properties.

3.7.2 Statistical Technique: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

The statistical technique called Pearson Product-Moment Correlation (PPMC) was usedto measure the strength of the relationship between the variables in group A and the variables ingroup 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 predictedfrom the other by using a linear equation. A Pearson correlation of r = 1.00 indicates that onevariable can be predicted perfectly by a positive linear function of the other, and vice versa. Avalue of r = -1.00 indicates the same, except that the function has a negative sign for the slope ofthe line. Squaring the r-value results in the percentage of variance explained in each case (Casad1992:135). For example, if r = 0.70, then 49% (= 0.49 times 100%) of the variance being studiedis accounted for. It means 49% of the samples have the positive correlation between the twovariables being compared. The higher the r-value, the higher percentage of the variance isaccounted 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 weresamples of the entire population; thus an r-value yielded from their scores was just the samplecorrelation coefficient. It is impossible to compute the population correlation coefficient unlessthe entire population answers the questionnaire. To determine if an r-value yielded from the 335samples is a reliable reflection of the discreet population correlation coefficient, two hypothesesfor 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 entirepopulation;

(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, brieflyspeaking, the r-value in question must be greater than the ‘critical value’ given in the Table inAppendix D. In that table, the ‘degrees of freedom’ (‘df’) is equal to the number of participantsminus 2; for this research 335 minus 2 is df333. Since df333 is closer to df300 than to df400 inthat table, the critical values shown on the row of df300 were taken for reference in mostPPMC’s in this paper. At the 5% level of significance i (hereafter ‘at 5% LS’), the critical valueof a two-variable test is 0.113, and at the 1% level (‘at 1% LS’), 0.148. All r-values in this paperwere compared with these two critical values. If the r-value was a negative number, then it mustbe smaller than -0.113 at 5% LS and -0.148 at 1% LS to be considered representative of thepopulation correlation coefficient.

i This generally means that the chance that the hypothesis was actually wrong is 5 %. At the 1% level ofsignificance, the chance is 1%. Therefore, the 1% level is a better guarantee that the hypothesis is correctlyaccepted than the 5% level.

33

Table 11. Variable Group A

Code andAbbreviated 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’ i

(4) 2nd Lang. Number of secondlanguage(s) known

One point for each language

(5) 1st WrittenLang.

Written language learnedfirst in life

‘Chinese’, ‘English’ and ‘Korean’

(6) Lang. in Life Language written and readmost 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 readmost frequently in 1996

Same as (6)

(8) Lang. in Life &1996

Language written and readmost frequently in life and in1996

Sum of the scores on (6) and (7)

(9) Education Education Zero points for high school or lower; one for eachbachelor’s degree, two for each master’s degree;three for each doctoral degree

(10) Post-high Years of post-high-schooleducation

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 photographicmemory

‘Yes’ or ‘No’

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. Theirscores were used in most statistical tests except those involving only the Chinese-writing participants and theEnglish-writing ones.

34

Table 12. Variable Group B

Code andAbbreviated Name

Variable Scoring Scheme or Categorization of Data

(A) % of IM’s in I Percentage of IM’sof all metaphorscompleted in section I

The sum of IM’s divided by the total numberof metaphors composed; one percent yieldsone point; the highest score is 100

(B) % of IM’s in II Percentage of IM’sof all metaphorscompleted in section II

Same as (A)

(C) % of IM’s in I& II

Percentage of IM’sof all metaphorscompleted in sections I and II

Same as (A)

(D) % of IM’s inRock #1

Percentage of IM’sof all propertiesembodied by the namefor Rock #1 in section III

The sum of IM’s divided by the total numberof properties; one percent yields one point;the highest score is 100

(E) % of IM’s inRock #2

Percentage of IM’sof all propertiesembodied by the namefor Rock #2 in section III

Same as (D)

(F) % of IM’s inRock #3

Percentage of IM’sof all propertiesembodied by the namefor 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’ dividedby the total number of metaphorscomposed in section I; one percent yieldsone point; the highest score is 100

(H) % of V-vehicles

Percentage of ‘visiblevehicles’ of all vehicles insection II

The sum of ‘visible topics’ dividedby the total number of metaphorscomposed in section I; one percent yieldsone point; the highest score is 100

(I) % of V-topicsand V-vehicles

Percentage of ‘visible topics’and ‘visible vehicles’ of alltopics and vehicles in sectionsI and II

The sum of all ‘visible topics’and ‘visible vehicles’ divided by the total number ofmetaphors 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 groupsof participants, to find out if there is a statistically significant mean difference. For the t-tests inthis paper, the participants were broken into different pairs of groups based on the variableconcerned. The mean scores of the two groups in each pair were compared with a t-test to yielda so-called ‘t-value’. For example, the mean scores of the participants whose first language wasChinese were compared with those of the participants whose first language was English, and thevariable was ‘first language’. Similarly, participants who were Chinese majors at college werecompared with those who were not, and the variable used for grouping them was ‘collegemajor’.

As the PPMC gives an r-value, so a t-test also gives a t-value. It is computed with themeans, standard deviations and sample sizes of the two groups being compared. Since the sizesof the Chinese-writing participants and the English-writing participants were larger than 30, it canbe assumed that (i) both sample standard deviations were close to their population standarddeviations; (ii) both population probability distributions were normal or close to normal, whichmeans that both curves representing the probability distributions were mound-shaped or bell-shaped. In short, the larger the random sample size, the more reliably its sample mean andstandard deviation can reflect the discreet population mean and standard deviation. Standarddeviation 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 automaticallybe considered statistically significant and taken as a reliable reflection of the discreet populationmean difference. The sample sizes and standard deviations of the two sample groups beingcompared must also be considered. A mean difference is statistically significant when the t-valueyielded exceeds the corresponding critical values given in the table in Appendix E. Like those forthe 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 twopopulation 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 andthe alternate hypothesis accepted. In a t-test, the df is the size of sample group one plus the sizeof sample group two, then minus the number of sample groups. In most t-tests in this paper, thedf exceeded 120, so at 5% LS, the critical value must be 1.645, and at 1% LS, 2.326 (see the lastrow 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 seeif 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 isneeded to find out if there is a statistically significant correlation between two sets of scores ontwo different variables within one sample group. A t-test compares the scores on one or morevariables of two different sample groups which are put together based on a specific variablecommon to both. A t-value is needed to tell if a difference in the score means on a specificvariable 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 beconsidered reliable reflections of the statistical situations in their population(s).

37

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, all major research findings are numbered and presented as headings ofsections. In most PPMC’s and t-tests, the scores on the variables in group A were tested withthose on the variables in group B, that is, the personal data on the participants were comparedwith their scores in sections I, II and III of the questionnaire. Since the PPMC’s are moreappropriately used for testing variables which contain continuous data, only eight of the twelvevariables were tested with the PPMC’s. The other four variables which had discrete namedvalues in their fields, like the categories ‘male’ and ‘female’ or ‘yes’ and ‘no’, were tested witht-tests instead.

Table 13 shows the profiles of the 335 participants based on their language backgroundand 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 Chinese: 134; English: 92 Chinese: 22; Others: 204 Chinese: 221; English: 5English: 86 English: 86 Others: 86 English: 86Korean: 23 English: 23 Others: 23 Korean: 19; English: 3

Malay: 1Total: 335 Total: 335 Total: 335 Total: 335

4.2 Findings Related to All 335 Participants

Finding 1: Non-language-related variables were not correlated to the use of IM’samong all 335 participants.

Table 14 shows the r-values yielded by comparing the scores on the four non-language-related variables in group A with those on variables (A) to (F) among all 335 participants. Thecritical 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 thatthere is no statistically significant correlation between any of these pairs of variables in the entirepopulation should not be rejected (or should be accepted). The participants’ percentages of IM’sin composing metaphors and naming rocks could not be predicted by their scores on these fournon-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.

38

Table 14. Correlations between Non-language-related Variables and IM’s among All 335Participants

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s inI & II

(D) % of M’sin Rock #1

(E) % of IM’sin Rock #2

(F) % of IM’sin 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’samong all 335 participants.

Table 15 shows the r-values yielded by comparing the scores on the four language-relatedvariables in group A with the scores on variables (A) to (F). In this and all other PPMC and t-testtables in the rest of this paper, r-values and t-values that exceed the critical value at 5% LS areunderlined. 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, theparticipants’ percentages of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks could not bepredicted by the numbers of the second languages they knew. There were no statisticallysignificant 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 335Participants

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % ofM’s in Rock#1

(E) % of IM’sin Rock #2

(F) % of IM’sin Rock #3

(4) 2nd Lang. 0.02 - 0.06 - 0.03 - 0.05 - 0.04 0.06

(6) Lang. inLife

0.20 0.29 0.32 0.07 0.12 0.18

(7) Lang. in1996

0.27 0.28 0.35 0.07 0.14 0.17

(8) Lang. inLife & 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 ofwhich also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The r-values related to variables (7) and (8) aresimilar to those related to variable (6). Therefore, there were statistically significant correlationsbetween 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’ percentagesof IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks could be predicted by their scores on thelanguage written and read most frequently in life, and the correlations were positive. Theparticipants’ amounts of exposure to the Chinese writing system were correlated to theirpercentages of IM’s used in composing metaphors and naming rocks.

Finding 3: The male participants used significantly more IM’s in composingmetaphors than the female participants among all 335 participants.

Finding 4: A self-reported photographic memory did not make a significantdifference in the use of IM’s among all 335 participants.

In section IV of the questionnaire, the participants were asked if they believed that theyhad a pictographic memory. Their answers were of interest to this research because apictographic 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 testedobjectively. 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 ingroup A. The number of participants in each group is given in parentheses after the name of thatgroup, e.g. 192 female participants and 143 male participants were involved in these t-tests. Eachgroup’s mean score and standard deviation on the variable concerned are given in pairs of figureslike ‘44.68; 16.16’. The left figure in each pair is the mean score, and the right one the standarddeviation. When a t-value is a negative number like -2.14, it is because the mean score of thegroup 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 consideredstatistically significant. If it is a positive number, for tables 16 and 17, the critical values of 1.645at 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 thetwo groups of variable (2) exceed the critical value at 5% LS. This indicates that there werestatistically significant differences in the mean scores between the female participants and the maleparticipants in composing metaphors. The male participants used significantly more IM’s insection I than the female participants. The male participants’ overall percentage of IM’s amongall composed metaphors in sections I and II was also significantly higher than that of the femaleparticipants. About naming rocks, none of the t-values exceeds either critical value, so there wereno significant mean differences between these two sexes. The male participants did not usesignificantly more IM’s in naming rocks than the female participants.

40

Table 16. Gender and Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 335Participants

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of M’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

(2) Gender:Female (192)Male (143)

T-value

41.02; 15.0144.68; 16.16

- 2.14

36.90; 19.2038.57; 21.71

- 0.75

39.31; 13.0242.05; 14.53

- 1.81

28.36; 34.8529.65; 36.92

- 0.33

51.21; 43.6345.92; 45.16

1.08

50.65; 43.9150.47; 46.05

0.04

(12) Photo:No (236)Yes (99)

T-value

42.48; 15.1942.83; 16.60

- 0.19

38.36; 20.6435.85; 19.44

1.03

40.58; 13.5940.24; 14.13

0.21

28.93; 36.5428.87; 33.80

0.01

47.06; 44.7553.45; 43.09

- 1.21

50.00; 45.5351.94; 43.09

- 0.36

None of the t-values related to variable (12) exceed either critical value, so there were nosignificant mean differences in the scores between those who reported to possess a photographicmemory and those who reported otherwise. The former group did not use significantly moreIM’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 ofIM’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 ofwhich also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statisticallysignificant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Participantswhose first language was Chinese used significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors andnaming 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 ofwhich also exceed the critical value at 1% LS, indicating that there were statistically significantdifferences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Participants who learned towrite 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) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of M’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

(3) 1st Lang.:Chinese (226)English (86)

T-value

44.79; 15.4538.12; 15.55

3.40

42.23; 18.7229.43; 20.78

5.23

43.72; 13.3633.52; 12.60

6.12

29.65; 34.3930.62; 38.76

- 0.21

52.91; 42.8341.16; 45.63

2.13

55.05; 43.9840.50; 44.47

2.60

(5) 1st WrittenLang.:Chinese (221)English (94)

T-value

44.81; 15.3739.32; 14.68

2.94

42.12; 18.8129.97; 20.79

5.08

43.68; 13.4034.80; 11.88

5.56

29.80; 34.4928.90; 38.19

0.20

53.21; 42.6340.32; 46.07

2.40

54.60; 43.9842.82; 45.42

2.15

Finding 6: Language-related variables made a significant difference in the use ofIM’s among participants who had composed 20 metaphors.

Not all 335 participants had composed a total of 20 qualified metaphors in sections I andII of the questionnaire. A total of 214 participants from among the Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and theKor-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 totalnumber of metaphors completed. The fewer the completed metaphors, the heavier each qualifiedmetaphor and each IM weighed. The percentages might be different if only those participantswho had completed 20 metaphorsi were counted. Table 18 shows the t-values yielded bycomparing the mean scores on variables (A) to (F) between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts who hadcomposed 20 metaphors. For comparison, t-values from Table 17 are given in parentheses besidetheir 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 ofwhich also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statisticallysignificant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Among allparticipants who had composed 20 metaphors, those whose first language was Chinese usedsignificantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming Rocks #2 and #3 than those whosefirst 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 roundof t-tests.

42

Table 18. Language-related Variables and IM’s between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts WhoHad Composed 20 Metaphors

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % of M’sin I & II

(D) % of M’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

(3) 1st Lang.:Chinese (153)English (61)

T-value

44.77; 16.4739.02; 14.80

2.37 (3.40)

43.14; 17.5326.56; 15.48

6.45 (5.23)

43.95; 13.5732.79; 11.92

5.62 (6.12)

27.57; 31.9426.78; 35.65

0.16 (- 0.21)

53.70; 42.4743.55; 45.35

1.55 (2.13)

55.99; 43.0341.80; 44.99

2.15 (2.60)

(5) 1st WrittenLang.:Chinese (149)English (65)

T-value

44.77; 16.3439.85; 14.74

2.08 (2.94)

42.89; 17.6428.00; 16.32

5.80 (5.08)

43.83; 13.6233.92; 12.10

5.05 (5.56)

27.98; 32.0824.62; 35.25

0.68 (0.20)

54.47; 42.1841.64; 45.74

1.99 (2.40)

55.48; 42.9143.85; 45.60

1.79 (2.15)

Five of the six t-values related to variable (5) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, two ofwhich also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there were statisticallysignificant differences in the mean scores between the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts. Among allparticipants who had composed 20 metaphors, those who learned to write Chinese first in lifeused significantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming Rocks #2 and #3 than thosewho learned to write English first in life.

The t-values above are generally lower than those in Table 17 which were yielded from t-tests involving all 335 participants. However, the general picture in Table 18 still shows thatthere 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 ofIM’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 wasKorean and those who learned to write Korean first in life. All of the above t-tests on non-language-related variables have also included the Kor-pts, but t-tests on language-relatedvariables have not. This section discusses the mean differences among the Kor-pts, the Chi-ptsand the Eng-pts. All 335 participants, not only those who had composed 20 metaphors, werecounted in this round of t-tests. Table 19 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of theChi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts. Each t-test involved only two of the three groups. For thet-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 incomposing 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 usedsignificantly 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 theKor-pts

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % ofIM’s in Rock#1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

(3) 1st Lang.:Korean (23)English (86)

T-value

37.57; 12.7538.12; 15.55

- 0.16

22.91; 17.1129.43; 20.78

- 1.38

34.66; 9.5133.52; 12.60

0.40

15.22; 35.1530.62; 38.76

- 1.72

39.13; 49.9041.16; 45.63

- 0.19

44.20; 48.6240.50; 44.47

0.35

(5) 1st WrittenLang.:Korean (19)English (94)

T-value

34.56; 16.4039.32; 14.68

- 1.26

24.53; 17.4829.97; 20.79

- 1.07

33.02; 12.9734.80; 11.88

- 0.58

20.18; 37.9228.90; 38.19

0.91

42.11; 50.7340.32; 46.07

- 0.15

39.47; 45.8842.82; 45.42

0.29

(3) 1st Lang.:Korean (23)Chinese (226)

T-value

37.57; 12.7544.79; 15.45

- 2.17

22.91; 17.1142.23; 18.72

- 4.75

34.66; 9.5143.72; 13.36

- 3.17

15.22; 35.1529.65; 34.39

- 1.91

39.13; 49.9052.91; 42.83

- 1.45

44.20; 48.6255.05; 43.98

- 1.12

(5) 1st WrittenLang.:Korean (19)Chinese (221)

T-value

34.56; 16.4044.81; 15.37

- 2.78

24.53; 17.4842.12; 18.81

- 3.08

33.02; 12.9743.68; 13.40

- 3.33

20.18; 37.9229.80; 34.49

- 1.16

42.11; 50.7353.21; 42.63

- 1.07

39.47; 45.8854.60; 43.98

- 1.43

4.5 Findings Primarily Related to the 226 Chi-pts

Finding 8: The written language used in answering the questionnaire made asignificant 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 answersin traditional complex characters, and 92 answered the English questionnaire and wrote theiranswers in English letters. Table 20 shows the t-values yielded by comparing their scores onvariables (A) to (F). The Eng-pts and the Kor-pts were not involved in these t-tests. The criticalvalues 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) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % ofIM’s in Rock#1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Answered in:Chinese (134)English (92)

T-value

47.26; 15.8541.21; 14.18

2.94

44.63; 17.9638.73; 19.34

2.35

46.18; 13.1540.14; 12.90

3.42

32.54; 32.7525.45; 36.43

1.53

59.27; 42.3443.66; 42.07

2.73

60.88; 41.7646.56; 45.93

2.43

Five of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 1% LS. This indicates that there werestatistically significant mean differences in the scores of these two groups. Those who composedthe metaphors and named the rocks in Chinese used significantly more IM’s than those who didso in English. Though all 226 participants spoke Chinese as their first language, the language inwhich they thought and wrote made a significant difference in their use of IM’s in composingmetaphors and naming rocks.

Finding 9: The written language used in answering the questionnaire made asignificant difference in the use of IM’s among all 335 participants.

Among all 335 participants, 134 answered the Chinese questionnaire and wrote theiranswers in traditional complex characters, and 201 answered the English questionnaire and wrotetheir answers in English letters. The latter included all Eng-pts and Kor-pts. Table 21 shows thet-values yielded by comparing their scores on variables (A) to (F). The critical values are 1.645 at5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.

Table 21. Version of Questionnaire and IM’s among All 335 Participants

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s inI & II

(D) % ofIM’s in Rock#1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Answered in:Chinese (134)English (201)

T-value

47.26; 15.8539 47; 14.65

4.61

44.63; 17.9632.94; 20.45

5.38

46.18; 13.1536.68; 12.78

6.59

32.54; 32.7526.49; 37.42

1.52

59.27; 42.3442.07; 44.35

3.54

60.88; 41.7643.70; 45.48

3.50

The results are similar to those in Table 20. Compared to all participants who answeredthe English questionnaire, the 134 Chi-pts who answered the Chinese questionnaire usedsignificantly more IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks.

45

Finding 10: More exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significantdifference 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 composingthe metaphors and naming the three rocks, the written language they exposed to most frequentlyin life and in 1996 could also be a factor for their higher percentages of IM’s in composingmetaphors and naming rocks. Table 22 shows the average scores of the above two groups and all225 Chi-pts on variables (6), (7) and (8). A higher score suggests more exposure to the Chinesewriting system.

Table 22. Exposure To the Chinese Writing System and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts

Version of QuestionnaireAnswered

No. ofChi-pts

(6) Lang. in Life(out of 2 points)

(7) Lang. in 1996(out of 2 points)

(8) Lang. in Life and1996 (out of 4 points)

ChineseEnglish

Total

13492

226

1.821.06

1.48

1.510.56

1.08

3.331.62

2.56

Chi-pts who answered the Chinese questionnaire scored significantly higher than Chi-ptswho answered the English questionnaire on all three variables. Their scores were also high abovethe average scores of all 226 Chi-pts. On the contrary, the scores of those who answered theEnglish questionnaire were far below the average scores. This indicates that on average thosewho answered the Chinese questionnaire also had significantly more exposure to the Chinesewriting system than other Chi-pts, thus resulting in their higher percentages of IM’s in composingmetaphors and naming rocks.

Finding 11: Chinese majors in university used significantly more IM’s than non-Chinese majors among all 226 Chi-pts.

Twenty-two of the 226 Chi-pts majored in the Chinese Language and/or ChineseLiterature in Hong Kong University or the Chinese University of Hong Kong. They scored aperfect 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 Chi-pts. The nature of their Chinese studies also required them to read and write the characters moreoften than all other Chi-pts did. Table 23 shows t-values yielded by comparing their scores onvariables (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 Englishquestionnaire (‘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 criticalvalues 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 valuesare 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. TheC-M group used significantly more IM’s than the All-C group in composing metaphors, but notin naming rocks.

In test set (ii), two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS, one of which alsoexceeds the critical value at 1% LS. In general, the C-M group used significantly more IM’s thanthe 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) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of IM’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Test Set (i):All-C (204)C-M (22)

T-value

44.25; 15.3349.80; 15.93

- 1.61

41.06; 18.8153.03; 14.14

- 2.89

42.89; 13.3151.47; 11.40

- 2.91

28.88; 34.8336.82; 29.73

- 1.03

52.25; 43.0059.09; 41.70

- 0.71

54.45; 44.1860.61; 42.58

- 0.62

Test Set (ii):C-C (112)C-M (22)

T-value

46.76; 15.8549.80; 15.93

- 0.82

42.98; 18.2253.03; 14.14

- 2.44

45.14; 13.2751.47; 11.40

- 2.09

31.70; 33.3736.82; 29.73

- 0.67

59.30; 42.6559.09; 41.70

0.02

60.94; 41.7960.61; 42.58

0.03

Test Set (iii):C-E (92)C-M (22)

T-value

41.21; 14.1849.80; 15.93

- 2.49

38.73; 19.3453.03; 14.14

- 3.26

40.14; 12.9051.47; 11.40

- 3.78

25.45; 36.4336.82; 29.73

- 1.36

43.66; 42.0759.09; 41.70

- 1.55

46.56; 45.9360.61; 42.58

- 1.31

In test set (iii), three of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The C-Mgroup used significantly more IM’s than the C-E group in composing metaphors, but not innaming rocks.

It was assumed that the C-M group had more exposure to the Chinese writing system thanthe C-C group and the C-C group in turn had more exposure to the Chinese writing system thanthe C-E group (at least when answering their questionnaires, the C-C group had to think andwrite in Chinese). Therefore, it was expected that there would be more significant meandifferences between the C-M group and the C-E group than between the C-M group and the C-Cgroup. This was verified by the t-values in test sets (ii) and (iii) above. Besides this, since the All-C group included participants who answered the English questionnaire and used significantlyfewer IM’s than other Chi-pts (see finding 8), more significant mean differences between the C-Mgroup and the All-C group than between the C-M group and the C-C group were expected. Thiswas 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 significantdifference in the use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.

After comparing the Chinese majors with other Chi-pts, finding 10 shows that moreexposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant difference in the use of IM’s among allChi-pts in composing metaphors. Another set of t-tests were used to verify finding 10 from adifferent angle—by comparing groups of Chi-pts who scored differently on variable (6) ‘languagewritten and read mostly frequently in life’.

The scores of the 226 Chi-pts on variable (6) ranged from zero to two points. Those whoscored zero (the ‘0-group’) had the least exposure to the Chinese writing system although theycould read and write the characters. Those who scored one point (the ‘1-group’) either read orwrote the characters most frequently in life. Their exposure to the Chinese writing system wastherefore 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 Chinesewriting system must have been higher than the 0-group and the 1-group. Table 24 shows the t-values 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), 1.645at 5% LS and 2.326 at 1% LS.

Table 24. Exposure to Chinese in Life and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of IM’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Test Set (i):0-group (28)1-group (36)

T-value

40.28; 16.1446.65; 15.73

- 1.59

36.67; 17.1844.77; 19.07

- 1.76

38.83; 11.8345.53; 14.37

- 1.99

22.62; 27.5826.16; 36.14

- 0.43

55.95; 39.6041.20; 42.44

1.42

47.02; 43.0541.67; 44.99

0.48

Test Set (ii):1-group (36)2-group(162)

T-value

46.65; 15.7345.16; 15.21

0.53

44.77; 19.0742.62; 18.82

0.62

45.53; 14.3744.16; 13.26

0.55

26.16; 36.1431.65; 35.02

- 0.85

41.20; 42.4454.99; 43.27

- 1.73

41.67; 44.9959.41; 43.38

- 2.21

Test Set (iii):0-group (28)2-group(162)

T-value

40.28; 16.1445.16; 15.21

- 1.55

36.67; 17.1842.62; 18.82

- 1.31

38.83; 11.8344.16; 13.26

- 1.99

22.62; 27.5831.65; 35.02

- 1.30

55.95; 39.6054.99; 43.27

0.11

47.02; 43.0559.41; 43.38

- 1.40

In test set (i), 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 namingrocks.

48

In test set (ii), two of the six t-values exceed the critical value at 5% LS. In general, the2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 1-group in naming rocks, but not in composingmetaphors.

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 innaming rocks.

Although these were some significant differences, there were not as many as in the nextfinding.

Finding 13: More exposure to the Chinese writing system in 1996 made a significantdifference 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—bycomparing groups of Chi-pts who scored differently on variable (7) ‘language written and readmost frequently in 1996’.

Again, the 226 Chi-pts were broken into 0-group, 1-group and 2-group according to theirscores on variable (7). Table 25 shows the t-values yielded by comparing the scores of thesethree groups on variables (A) to (F). For test set (iv), the critical values are 1.658 at 5% LS and2.358 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. Ingeneral, the 1-group used significantly more IM’s than the 0-group in composing metaphors, butnot in naming rocks.

Table 25. Exposure to Chinese in 1996 and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of IM’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Test Set (iv):0-group (74)1-group (41)

T-value

39.90; 14.0145.16; 17.04

- 1.78

38.40; 19.4342.83; 18.43

- 1.17

39.45; 13.0343.83; 14.59

- 1.66

26.35; 32.4728.05; 36.60

- 0.26

50.00; 41.7543.09; 42.98

0.84

48.65; 45.0649.19; 46.84

- 0.06

Test Set (v):1-group (41)2-group(111)

T-value

45.16; 17.0447.92; 15.04

- 0.97

42.83; 18.4344.56; 17.71

- 0.52

43.83; 14.5946.53; 12.44

- 1.13

28.05; 36.6032.45; 34.88

- 0.68

43.09; 42.9858.48; 43.02

- 1.96

49.19; 46.8461.49; 41.58

- 1.56

Test Set (vi):0-group (74)2-group(111)

T-value

39.90; 14.0147.92; 15.04

- 3.65

38.40; 19.4344.56; 17.71

- 2.23

39.45; 13.0346.53; 12.44

- 3.72

26.35; 32.4732.45; 34.88

- 1.20

50.00; 41.7558.48; 43.02

- 1.33

48.65; 45.0661.49; 41.58

- 1.99

49

In test set (v), one of the six t-values exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. In general, the2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 1-group in naming Rock #2, but not in composingmetaphors.

In test set (vi), four of the six t-values exceeds the critical value at 5% LS, three of whichalso exceed the critical value at 1% LS. The 2-group used significantly more IM’s than the 0-group in composing metaphors and in naming Rock #3.

Finding 14: More recent exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significantdifference 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 inTables 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 2-groups in test set (vi) were more significant than those in test set (iii). This indicates that therecency of the Chi-pts’ exposure to the Chinese writing system made a significant difference intheir 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 24or Table 25. This suggests that either reading or writing the characters more frequently in life orin 1996 had a similar effect on the Chi-pts. As long as the Chi-pts read or wrote, or both read andwrote the characters, whether mostly frequently in life or in 1996, their use of IM’s would beinfluenced by their exposure to this writing system to a very similar degree. And if they neitherread nor wrote the characters, whether mostly frequently in life or in 1996, the influence of thiswriting system on them would be comparatively less, thus resulting in more mean differencesbetween 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 notmade a significant difference in the use of IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts whoanswered the Chinese questionnaire.

As explained in 3.5.5, the Chinese questionnaire had two versions, one with nounclassifiers and the other without. Seventy-two of the 134 Chi-pts answered the one with nounclassifiers, and 62 answered the one without. Table 26 shows the t-values yielded by comparingtheir 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 theChinese, the presence of noun classifiers in their questionnaires did not make a significantdifference in their use of IM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks. The overall higherpercentage of IM’s in their metaphors must be attributed to their influence by their writing systemas a whole.

50

Table 26. Noun Classifiers and IM’s among the 134 Chi-pts Who Answered the ChineseQuestionnaire

(A) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % of IM’sin Rock #1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

Class (72)No-class (62)

T-value

49.18; 15.2445.02; 16.36

1.52

45.60; 18.5443.51; 17.35

0.67

47.80; 13.1744.30; 12.99

1.54

33.49; 33.1531.42; 32.51

0.36

54.98; 42.4164.25; 42.04

- 1.27

63.43; 41.6457.93; 42.05

0.76

Finding 16: The male Chi-pts used significantly more IM’s than the female Chi-ptsamong all 226 Chi-pts.

Table 27 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of the male Chi-pts with those ofthe female Chi-pts on variables (A) to (F). These t-tests involved all Chi-pts, including those whoanswered 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) % ofIM’s in I

(B) % ofIM’s in II

(C) % ofIM’s in I &II

(D) % ofIM’s in Rock#1

(E) % ofIM’s in Rock#2

(F) % ofIM’s in Rock#3

(2) Gender:Female (138)Male (88)

T-value

43.22; 14.5847.26; 16.50

- 1.93

41.30; 17.7143.68; 20.28

- 0.90

42.60; 12.0745.49; 15.07

- 1.59

31.85; 34.9526.21; 33.41

1.20

55.86; 41.9248.30; 44.06

1.30

55.25; 43.0154.74; 45.69

0.08

One of the six t-values of variable (2) exceeds the critical value at 5% LS. The male Chi-pts used significantly more IM’s than the female Chi-pts in composing metaphors in section I ofthe questionnaire, but not in section II, nor in naming rocks.

With reference to Table 16, among all 335 participants, the male participants also usedmore 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’sin their metaphors and rocks’ names, because this factor affected all 335 participants, regardlessof their language background.

Finding 17: A self-reported photographic memory made a significant difference inthe use of IM’s among all 226 Chi-pts.

As mentioned in finding 4, among the 99 Chi-pts who reported having a photographicmemory, 83 were the Chi-pts. While only 11.6% of the Eng-pts reported having a photographicmemory, as many as 36.7% of the Chi-pts reported having one. Although the participants’ self-reported 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 topictographic 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 composingmetaphors because a photographic memory is primarily about memorizing things, not relatingdifferent things in this world. Therefore, it was possible that such a memory had no influence ontheir use of IM's in composing metaphors. Like finding 4, finding 17 is suggestive, notconclusive.

Table 28 shows t-values yielded by comparing the scores of the 83 Chi-pts who reportedhaving a photographic memory with those who reported otherwise. 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 28. Self-reported Photographic Memory and IM’s among All 226 Chi-pts

(A) % of IM’sin I

(B) % of IM’sin II

(C) % ofIM’s in I & II

(D) % ofIM’s in Rock#1

(E) % of IM’sin Rock #2

(F) % of IM’sin Rock #3

(12) Photo:No (143)Yes (83)

T-value

44.98; 15.2244.47; 15.92

0.24

44.61; 18.6538.13; 18.24

2.54

44.87; 13.3141.74; 13.28

1.70

29.21; 35.0530.42; 33.42

- 0.26

52.33; 42.8753.92; 42.99

- 0.27

55.24; 44.8254.72; 42.75

0.09

Two of the six t-values of variable (12) exceed the critical value at 5% LS, one of whichalso exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. Therefore, Chi-pts who reported not having aphotographic memory used significantly more IM’s than those who reported otherwise, incomposing metaphors, but not in naming rocks.

With reference to Table 16, the 99 participants who reported not having a photographicmemory did not use significantly more IM’s than those who reported otherwise, in composingmetaphors and naming rocks. In the case of the Chi-pts, a self-reported photographic memorydid 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 intheir metaphors than those who believed they had no photographic memory. Therefore, thehigher 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 ‘visiblevehicles’ 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 thetopics when composing their metaphors. In section II, the topics were given and the participantsprovided 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 groupedaccording to variables (3) and (5), so there are six sets of t-values in Table 29. However, the t-values related to the Kor-pts should be taken for reference only because their sample sizes werebelow 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 at1% LS.

Table 29. Language-related Variables and ‘Visible Topics and Vehicles’ among All 335Participants

(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 firstlanguage was English had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ in section II of the questionnairethan 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 ofwhich also exceeds the critical value at 1% LS. Participants whose first language was Chinesehad 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 towrite Chinese first in life had significantly more ‘visible vehicles’ in section II than those wholearned to write Korean first in life.

Finding 19: The percentages of visible topics and vehicles among the 226 Chi-ptswere 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 thaninvisible concepts or ideas for their topics or vehicles in composing metaphors. A set of PPMC’swere used to find out if this was correlated to their use of IM’s in composing metaphors. Table30 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 (rightthree 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 at5% LS, six of which also exceed the critical value at 1% LS. Therefore, these two sets ofvariables were correlated in the Chinese-related population.

Table 30. Correlations between ‘Visible Vehicles and Topics’ and IM’s among All 226Chi-pts

Chi-pts Chi-pts Chi-pts Eng-pts Eng-pts Eng-pts

(G) % of V-topicsin I

(H) % ofV-vehiclesin II

(I) % ofV-topics &V-vehicles

(G) % ofV-topics in I

(H) % ofV-vehiclesin II

(I) % ofV-topics& V-vehicles

(A) % of IM’sin I

0.33 0.12 0.33 -0.11 -0.04 -0.07

(B) % of IM’sin II

0.09 0.43 0.25 0.26 0.04 0.31

(C) % of IM’sin 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 alsoexceeds the critical value at 1% LS. In general, the correlations between these two sets ofvariables in the English-related population were not as significant as those in the Chinese-relatedpopulation.

According to Isaac (1990:196), “correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Twovariables 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 higherpercentages of IM’s of variables (A) to (C). If not, this kind of causation would have happenedto both the Chi-pts and the Eng-pts in the research. It is evident that the Eng-pts did not usemore 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 werenot found to be correlated to the percentages of IM’s among all 335 participants. The threelanguage-related variables (6), (7) and (8) were found to have made a significant difference in theuse 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 theChinese writing system to answer the questionnaires, were found to have resulted in morefrequent use of IM’s in composing metaphors among the Chi-pts. The Chi-pts not only usedsignificantly more IM’s than the Eng-pts, but also had significantly more ‘visible topics andvehicles’ than the Eng-pts in composing metaphors. On the whole, the language background ofthe participants stood out among other variables as the main factor for the participants’ use ofIM’s in composing metaphors and naming rocks. So there are reasons to believe that the Chinesewriting system was a crucial factor for the Chi-pts’ more frequent use of IM’s in composingmetaphors and naming rocks.

55

CHAPTER 5

FURTHER DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses a few concerns about the research findings in chapter 4, especiallythose 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 thanthe Eng-pts in composing metaphors, but they did not always use more IM’s innaming rocks. Why?

The reason may be that the Chi-pts incorporated more properties in their rocks’ namesthan 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. Aname might therefore embody more than one property of the rock. For example, a participantmight name a rock ‘Fire’ because of its color, temperature, changing form and beinguntouchable—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 bydifferent groups of participants. In each set of columns, the leftmost column represents theoverall number of properties embodied by the names given by all 335 participants; the nextcolumn, by the Chi-pts who majored in Chinese at college, then by all Chi-pts, by all Eng-pts, andby all Kor-Pts respectively.

0

0 . 5

1

1 . 5

2

2 . 5

R o c k 1 R o c k 2 R o c k 3

A ll-A v .

C h i - M - A v .

C h i n - A v .

E n g - A v .

K o r - A v

Figure 3. Average Numbers of Properties Embodied by the Rocks’ Names

Chinese majors incorporated comparatively more properties in their rocks’ names thanother groups did. The Chi-pts as a whole also incorporated more properties in their rocks’ namesthan the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts did. The numbers of properties in the names given by the Chi-pts were above the average numbers in the names given by all 335 participants.

56

These findings suggest that the participants’ exposure to the Chinese writing system wascorrelated to the numbers of properties embodied by their rocks’ name. The reason for this isunknown, but these findings might help explain why the Chi-pts did not always use significantlymore 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 usesignificantly fewer, either. Therefore, they were not less visually-oriented than the Eng-pts andKor-pts when naming the rocks.

5.3 Concern 2: Influence from Living Environments

Did the participants’ frequent exposure or proximity to certain things (other thantheir writing systems) in their living environments predispose them to certainmetaphorical links?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Sun is fire.

Clock is rooster.

Someone is ghost.

Snow is ice-cream.

Brain is computer.

W oman is sunflower.

Baby/Child is paper.

Life is rainbow.

Man is lion.

Cotton is cloud.

Exam. is torture.

Exam. is war.

Life is roller coaster.

Cake is sponge.

House is box.

Steak is leather/shoe.

Chi-ptsEng-pts

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 Eng-pts. Those metaphors did not necessarily have an IM. The bars stand for the percentages ofparticipants in that group. In each pair of bars, the upper one represents the Chi-pts, and thelower 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 metaphorshown on the y-axis by the total number of participants of that group who had composed a metaphor for thatspecific topic or vehicle. The number of the Chinese-related participants ranged from 197 to 225, and that of theEnglish-related participants from 70 to 84.

57

‘girlfriend’, and ‘someone’ includes any living person like ‘she’, ‘my supervisor’ and ‘thatpoliceman’.

From Figure 4, some metaphorical links were significantly more popular in one languagegroup than in the other. For example, the metaphor ‘sun is fire’ was clearly more popular amongthe Chi-pts than the Eng-pts, but the metaphor ‘life is a roller coaster’ was clearly more popularamong the Eng-pts than the Chi-pts.

The 20 given words in sections I and II of the questionnaire denoted things or conceptscommon to both language groups. For example, the sun and fire are common to both languagegroups, and yet the metaphor ‘ sun is (like) fire’ was more popular among the Chi-pts than theEng-pts. More than 40 Chi-pts (approx. 21%) linked ‘sun’ with ‘fire’. It is unlikely that theseChi-pts had had more exposure to the sun and fire than others. Similarly, steak and leather arealso common to both groups, but the metaphor ‘that steak is (like) leather’ was far more popularamong 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 HongKong on television and in newspapers, so most Chi-pts who lived in Hong Kong must have hadgreat exposure to the images of roller coasters. The land area of Hong Kong is only 415 squaremiles (1067 square km) (McHenry 1992:37), and there are amusement parks with roller coastersin 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, theylinked it with ‘my life’. On the contrary, snow is rare in Hong Kong, a tropical land, yet fourChi-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 morecommon, 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 intheir living environments did not automatically stimulate them to make certain metaphorical links.

If the living environments did not stimulate the participants to make certain metaphoricallinks, it is unlikely that the living environments directly influenced the participants’ use of IM's incomposing metaphors.

It was instead found that metaphorical links and the use of IM's were influenced bymetaphorical links and IM's found in idioms and colloquial expressions. Table 31 shows acomparison between some novel metaphors composed by the Chi-pts and some Chinese idioms orcolloquial Cantonese expressions which involve similar metaphorical links. (Cantonese is thedialect 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) wereidentical with those of the metaphorical links in their corresponding idioms or colloquialCantonese expressions; metaphors (1) and (2) are good examples. Except metaphor (4), allinvolved an IM. It is likely that those novel metaphors were ‘copied’ from idioms and colloquialexpressions in the Chinese language, whether spoken or written. In other words, themetaphorical links and IM's in one’s language affect one’s use of novel metaphorical links andIM's.

58

Table 31. Novel Metaphors and Metaphorical Links in Idioms and Colloquial CantoneseExpressions

Novel Metaphors by the Chi-pts Idioms or Colloquial Cantonese Expressions(literally translated)

1. ‘ I am (like) a cloud.’2. ‘ My thought is (like) a cloud.’

1. ‘I am a piece of cloud.’ This describessomeone’s being absent-minded or puzzled;

2. ‘A headful of fog and water.’ This alsodescribes someone’s being puzzled or lost.

3. ‘My Persian cat is (like) a pig.’ 3. ‘(Someone) lies idle like a dead pig and doesnot move even when kicked.’ This describes aperson’s unwillingness to move or to work, butgetting in the way of others who are working.

4. ‘My examination is (like) a nightmare.’ 4. ‘(Something) is a nightmare.’ This usuallydescribes a bad experience, not something thatlooks scary.

5. ‘That road is (like) an intestine.’ 5. ‘A small gut path.’ This idiom describes a long andwinding path.

5.4 Concern 3: Influence from ‘Visible Topics and Vehicle’

Did higher percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles’ automatically lead to higherpercentages of IM's in composing metaphors among the participants, particularlythe 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 bythe Chi-pts, the Eng-pts and the Kor-pts. The three lines on the higher level stand for thepercentages of visible topics and vehicles provided by the three language groups. Those on thelower level stand for their percentages of IM’s. (A1) to (A10) represent the ten metaphors insection 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 tometaphor, and from group to group.

59

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A.1

A.2

A.3

A.4

A.5

A.6

A.7

A.8

A.9

A.1

0

B.1

B.2

B.3

B.4

B.5

B.6

B.7

B.8

B.9

B.1

0

%-TYPE-CHIN

%-IM-CHIN

%-TYPE-ENG

%-IM-ENG

%-TYPE-KOR

%-IM-KOR

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 leadto 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 tolower 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 bythe visible properties of the things denoted by the visible topics and vehicles which the participantsprovided. Therefore, the Chi-pts’ higher percentages of IM's in their metaphors were not directresults of their percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles.’ Rather, the former could be directresults of their exposure to the Chinese writing system.

5.3 Conclusion

The participants’ metaphorical links and their use of IM's in composing metaphors werenot influenced by their frequent exposure and proximity to certain things in their livingenvironments. Nor did higher percentages of ‘visible topics and vehicles’ lead to higherpercentages of IM's in their metaphors. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the Chinesewriting system was a major factor for the Chi-pts’ higher percentages of IM's in composingmetaphors.

60

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

From chapter 2, we have seen that the Chinese writing is by nature more pictographic thanthe English one, and that graphic techniques are more popular for teaching the Chinese writingsystem than the English one. The research findings in chapter 4 show that the Chi-pts in generalused significantly more image-mappings than the Eng-pts in composing metaphors andoccasionally in naming rocks, and that the Chi-pts’ amount and recency of exposure to theChinese 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 theirliving environments and higher percentages of visible topics and vehicles did not automaticallystimulate 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 ofthe Chinese writing system predisposes its users to more frequent use of image-mappings inmetaphors and names. The general hypothesis stated in chapter 1 that there is a correlationbetween a writing system and the pattern of language use of its users is thus supported by thisstudy.

It is good to consider what further studies might provide evidence on this issue. Onemight compare the use of image-mappings between those who use traditional Chinese charactersand those who use simplified Chinese characters (e.g. comparing language use in Taiwan andSingapore). Or, one might compare the language use of native Japanese speakers and nativeEnglish speakers. In both studies, if the basic hypothesis is correct, the former group could usemore image-mappings than the latter. Further, if there is a dialect of Chinese that has analphabetic writing system, it would be worth comparing the language use of its users with that ofthe traditional Chinese character users to see if the latter will use more image-mappings.

61

APPENDICES

62

APPENDIX A

TRADITIONAL COMPLEX CHARACTERS, THEIR EARLIEST VERSIONSi

AND MODERN SIMPLIFIED VERSIONS USED IN THE PRCii

The Earliest OracleBone InscriptionHaving BeenDeciphered (c. 16th-11th century BC)

Bronze Inscription(c. 11th century –265 BC)

TraditionalComplexCharacter(Currently Usedin Taiwan andHong Kong)

SimplifiedVersion(Currently Usedin 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 (thecharacters here were typed in the ‘FMing S5’ font and the ‘JSong SG’ font respectively; they may appear slightlydifferent in different fonts).

ii The simplification of the characters in the PRC began in the 1950’s (Li 1993:3).

63

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 Chinesecharacters.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 aresimplified characters used in the PRC.

i and . 1967. . : .

64

APPENDIX C

ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE (PAGE 1)

TAKE A BREAK AND STRETCH YOUR IMAGINATIONMy 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 ______________________________________________________________________

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:

_______________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

67

APPENDIX D

CRITICAL VALUES OF PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONi

df 5% Level of Significance 1% Level of Significance

1 0.92692 0.938772 0.9500 0.92003 0.878 0.95874 0.811 0.91725 0.754 0.8756 0.707 0.8347 0.666 0.7988 0.632 0.7659 0.602 0.735

10 0.576 0.70811 0.553 0.68412 0.532 0.66113 0.514 0.64114 0.497 0.62315 0.482 0.60616 0.468 0.59017 0.456 0.57518 0.444 0.56119 0.433 0.54920 0.423 0.537

25 0.381 0.48730 0.349 0.44935 0.325 0.41840 0.304 0.39345 0.288 0.372

50 0.273 0.35460 0.250 0.32570 0.232 0.30280 0.217 0.28390 0.205 0.267100 0.195 0.254

i Source of data: Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics, 390.

Ohio: The Chemical Rubber Co.

68

APPENDIX E

CRITICAL VALUES OF STUDENT’S T-DISTRIBUTIONi

df 5% Level ofSignificance

1% level ofSignificance

1 6.314 31.8212 2.920 6.9653 2.353 4.5414 2.132 3.7475 2.015 3.3656 1.943 3.1437 1.895 2.9988 1.860 2.8969 1.833 2.82110 1.812 2.764

11 1.796 2.71812 1.782 2.68113 1.771 2.65014 1.761 2.62415 1.753 2.60216 1.746 2.58317 1.740 2.56718 1.734 2.55219 1.729 2.53920 1.725 2.528

21 1.721 2.51822 1.717 2.50823 1.714 2.50024 1.711 2.49225 1.708 2.48526 1.706 2.47927 1.703 2.47328 1.701 2.46729 1.699 2.46230 1.697 2.457

40 1.684 2.42360 1.671 2.390120 1.658 2.358> 120 1.645 2.326

i Source of data: Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics, 283.

Ohio: The Chemical Rubber Co.

69

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 scoreson 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 showscores of the 22 Chi-pts who majored in Chinese at college.

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

74

REFERENCES

Beyer, H. William. 1968. CRC handbook of tables for probability and statistics. Ohio: TheChemical Rubber Co.

Casad, H. Eugene. 1992. Windows on bilingualism. Dallas, Texas: Summer Institute ofLinguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.

DeFrances, John. 1984. The Chinese language, fact and fantasy. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress.

Ε �tiemble [no first name given]. 1954. New China and the Chinese Language. In Diogenes. 1954-56. 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—foreducation and the behavioral science. San Diego: Edits Publishers.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Lakoff, George and Mark Turner. 1989. More than a cool reason. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Li, Leyi. 1993. Tracing the roots of Chinese characters: 500 cases. Beijing: Beijing Language andCulture University Press.

McHenry, Robert (ed.). 1992. The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 6. Chicago:

Encyclopædia 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. . : .