Character Amnesia

By Min Xu
From Brill’s Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics (online and in print)

Character amnesia (in Chinese: tíbǐwàngzì 提筆忘字 ‘lifting one’s pen but forgetting the characters’) is the name for the phenomenon that people forget how to write Chinese characters which they previously were able to write. In most cases, the characters are not forgotten completely. Some people may remember the shape of the characters, but cannot remember the exact strokes to write them. Some may write the characters incorrectly, such as placing the components within a character in the wrong positions or missing some strokes (Huáng 2012:12–13). The phenomenon of character amnesia is common in China and Japan. According to a survey conducted by the China Youth Daily, 83% of the 2,072 respondents reported having forgotten how to write some characters (Hú and Wáng 2010). Another survey targeting college students in China found nearly 90% of respondents having encountered the embarrassment of character amnesia (Móu 2012:16–19). In Japan, a national survey conducted in 2011 showed that about 66.5% of the 2,069 respondents reported that they were losing their ability to correctly handwrite Japanese characters (kanji), and the figure has increased 25% in the last 10 years (Japan Today, 2012).

The high prevalence of character amnesia has been largely attributed to constant use of computers and mobile phones, which allow users to enter Chinese characters using their phonetic transcription. The Hànyǔ pīnyīn 漢語拼音 input method, for example, is used by over 97% of users in Mainland China (Chen and Lee 2000). It allows users to input a Chinese character (e.g., 媽 ‘mother’) by typing its pīnyīn spelling, a phonetic transcription of the character’s pronunciation (in this example, ‘ma’, but without tone), and then selecting the desired character from a list of characters sharing the same toneless pīnyīn spelling (e.g., (1) ma 嗎 ‘morphine; (question tag)’, ‘(question tag)’; (2) 碼 ‘a weight; number; yard; stack’; (3) 媽 ‘mother’; (4) 馬 ‘horse; a surname’; (5) 罵 ‘scold; abuse’; (6) 麻 ‘(to have) pins and needles; tingling; hemp; numb; to bother’. In this example, we can enter the character 媽 by pressing the key ‘3’. The pīnyīn input method does not require the users to construct the characters by combining strokes, as one would do in writing Chinese characters by hand (Zhū et al. 2009).

The properties of Chinese characters can explain why learners are susceptible to character amnesia. The Chinese writing system is a logographic system, in the sense that the graphic units (the characters) generally correspond to words or morphemes (Coulmas 2003:50–60). A character is a salient visual unit, formed with different types of strokes which are grouped into identifiable stroke patterns or components, which are arranged in appropriate positions relative to one another to form a square character. Moreover, Chinese characters map onto whole syllables. This means that there is no stroke or component in a character (e.g., 媽) that is pronounced as a specific phoneme (e.g., /m/) in the syllable. As a result, writing in Chinese requires thousands of characters, and it takes pupils six to seven years to master 3,000 characters (DeFrancis 1984:152–153). In Japan, children are taught about 1,000 kanji during six years of primary school (Gottlieb 2005:81–86). A prevalent strategy for learning Chinese characters in China and Japan is writing them by hand repeatedly. Through writing, the learners learn how to deconstruct characters into strokes and stroke patterns and then regroup these stroke patterns into a square unit, and form long-term motor memory of Chinese characters (Tan, Spinks et al. 2005). Indeed, neuroimaging studies have shown that relative to alphabetic languages, the processing of logographic characters more systematically engages brain regions that may support the motoric representation of characters, including the premotor cortex and the left middle frontal gyrus that is spatially close to the premotor cortex (Kuo et al. 2004; Nakamura et al. 2012; Tan, Laird et al. 2005).

Writing characters by drawing the strokes one by one is much more troublesome and complicated than typing pīnyīn on electronic devices. Chinese children in primary school are taught pīnyīn to help them read Chinese characters, and thus they can rapidly learn to use the pīnyīn input method for text-messaging, instant chat, email and so on. The prolonged and extensive use of computers and mobile phones has led people to spend far more time on typing pīnyīn than writing characters. According to the survey conducted by the China Youth Daily, only 25.7% of respondents reported that they frequently wrote characters by hand (Hú and Wáng 2010). As a result, people forget how to write some of the Chinese characters, particularly those that are complicated and rare. A recent study of 4,908 primary school children in China demonstrated that children’s reading performance significantly decreases with their utilization of the pīnyīn input method, but increases with their time spent on handwriting, suggesting that pīnyīn typing may hinder Chinese reading development, whereas handwriting enhances their reading ability (Tan et al. 2013).

To counteract the problem of character amnesia and improve writing ability among Chinese children, the Ministry of Education of China has initiated programs to encourage more handwriting (Ministry of Education of China 2013). Schools are instructed to increase calligraphy classes for younger students to once a week and offer optional lessons and after-school activities for older students. In addition, people are advised to switch input methods from pīnyīn to handwriting or shape-based input methods such as the five-stroke input method (Wǔbǐ zìxíng shūrùfǎ 五筆字型輸入法, sometimes translated as the ‘Wǔbǐ method’; Fāng and Zhāng 2013) or the double-stroke input method (Shuāngbǐ huàhànzì biānmǎ shūrùfǎ 雙筆劃漢字編碼輸入法; Chén et al. 2013). However, it remains unclear as what extent the shape-based input methods can help people to improve their ability of writing and reading Chinese characters.


Chén Lán 陈兰, Zhāng Rénpíng 张仁平 and Chéng Guóyuǎn 程国远, “Hànzì shūrùfǎ yánjiū tànsuǒ —— líng jìyì shuāng bǐhuà Hànzì biānmǎ shūrùfǎ 汉字输入法研究探索——零记忆双笔画汉字编码输入法” [Chinese characters input method research – Zero memory double stroke Chinese characters coding input method], Diànnǎo zhīshí yǔ jìshù 电脑知识与技术 9, 2013, 403–404.

Chen, Zheng and Kai-Fu Lee, “A New Statistical Approach to Chinese Pinyin Input”, in: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2000, 241–247.

Coulmas, Florian, Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

DeFrancis, John, The Chinese Language Fact and Fantasy, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1984.

Fāng Yànhóng 方燕红 and Zhāng Jījiā 张积家, “Wǔbǐ shūrùfǎ hé pīnyīn shūrùfǎ de rènzhī xiàolǜ bǐjiào 五笔输入法和拼音输入法的认知效率比较” [A comparison of the cognitive efficiency between pīnyīn and wǔbǐ typewriting], Jǐnggāngshān dàxué xuébào 井冈山大学学报 34, 2013, 66–71.

Gottlieb, Nanette, Language and Society in Japan, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Huáng Róngyú 黄荣瑜, “Wǎngluò shídài zhōngxuéshēng shūxiě nénglì de diàochá 网络时代中学生书写能力的调查” [The investigation of the middle-school students’ writing ability in the network era], MA thesis, Huázhōng shīfàn dàxué 华中师范大学, 2012.

Hú Míng 胡明 and Wáng Cōngcōng 王聪聪, “Shǒuxiě shídài jiànxíngjiànyuǎn手写时代渐行渐远” [Handwriting times further away], Zhōngguó qīngnián bào 中国青年报 April 16, 2010.

Japan Today, “Declining Kanji-writing Skill of Japanese Blamed on Cell Phones, Computers”, Japan Today, 22 September 2012.

Kuo, Wen-Jui, Tzu-Chen Yeh, Jun-Ren Lee, Li-Fen Chen, Po-Lei Lee, Shyan-Shiou Chen, Low-Tone Ho, Daisy L. Hung, Ovid J. L.Tzeng and Jen-Chuen Hsieh, “Orthographic and Phonological Processing of Chinese Characters: An fMRI Study”, Neuroimage 21, 2004, 1721–1731.

Ministry of Education of China, “Zhōng xiǎoxué shūfǎ jiàoyù zhǐdǎo gāngyào 中小学书法教育指导纲要” [The instruction outline for calligraphic education in primary and secondary schools], 2013.

Móu Yànyàn 牟艳艳, “Shěnyángshì dàxuéshēng Hànzì shūxiě yǔ jìyì qíngkuàng diàochá yánjiū 沈阳市大学生汉字书写与记忆情况调查研究” [An investigation into college students’ ability of handwriting and memorizing of Chinese characters in Shěnyáng], MA thesis, Shěnyáng shīfàn dàxué 沈阳师范大学, 2012.

Nakamura, Kimihiro, Wen-Jui Kuo, Felipe Pegado, Laurent Cohen, Ovid J. L. Tzeng and Stanislas Dehaene, “Universal Brain Systems for Recognizing Word Shapes and Handwriting Gestures During Reading”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, 2012, 20762–20767.

Tan, Li Hai, John Spinks, Guinevere Eden, Charles Perfetti and Wai Ting Siok, “Reading Depends on Writing, in Chinese”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 2005, 8781–8785.

Tan, Li Hai, Angela R. Laird, Karl Li and Peter T. Fox, “Neuroanatomical Correlates of Phonological Processing of Chinese Characters and Alphabetic Words: A Meta-analysis”, Human Brain Mapping 25, 2005, 83–91.

Tan, Li Hai, Min Xu, Chun Qin Chang and Wai Ting Siok, “China’s Language Input System in the Digital Age Affects Children’s Reading Development”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 2013, 1119–1123.

Zhū Zhāoxiá 朱朝霞, Liú Lì 刘丽, Dīng Guóshèng丁国盛 and Péng Dānlíng 彭聃龄, “Pīnyīn shūrù fǎ jīngyàn duì hànzì zìxíng hé yǔyīn jiāgōng de yǐngxiǎng 拼音输入法经验对汉字字形和语音加工的影响” [The influence of pīnyīn typewriting experience on orthographic and phonological processing of Chinese characters], Xīnlǐ xuébào 心理学报 9, 2009, 785–792.

On Kevin, Elizabeth, Dieter and Emma – anthroponyms in linguistics

By Jonas Schreiber
FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg & contributor to Brill’s Linguistic Bibliography

Names are something very special and fascinating from a linguistic point of view: they refer ideally only to one single entity, are therefore inherent definite – i.e. names don’t necessarily have to carry an article –, are mostly characterized by formal salience compared to other words in language, and matter enormously concerning cultural and sociological issues such as cultural identity or sociolinguistic attitudes towards some individuals with certain names. For instance, Kevin, a rather common boys’ name, was in German media discussed to be more like a diagnosis for a so called ‘problem child’ than an actual name. This discussion started in 2012 after Julia Kube handed in her sensation causing master thesis at the Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, on first names and teachers’ attitudes or prejudices regarding those.

With that, rather unsurprisingly, linguists are obviously still and constantly busy to explore the nature of names and the functions they have in languages of the world, as you will see in the following graphic on ‘Anthroponymy’ in Linguistic Bibliography Online (LBO). Over 7.500 records are labelled with this classification subject:

As already mentioned above, the study of anthroponyms can reveal a lot about ongoing cultural developments within a society. One aspect of names seems to be prominent there: names carry information about gender, mostly there is each a set of typical girls’ or boys’ names and a certain difference of structure between those sets tell us, whether a name belongs to a boy or to a girl.

However, Nübling (2012) for instance found out that first names in Germany since 1945 have developed to a more commonly approximated androgynous sound pattern. This is particularly evident in the phonological and prosodic difference between German male and female names, which seems to have diminished over time. Frequencies of names like Elizabeth or Dieter have been decreasing, numbers for names like Emma or Leon have increased.

Long story short: The study shows, that since 1945 an onymic weakening of names concerning explicit gender marking – especially in the 70s and 90s – has taken place. There is thus a strong suspicion that cultural developments like emancipation or gender equality movements in Germany in the 70s and 90s went along with structural harmonization for both, boys’ or girls’ names, towards a common androgynous sound pattern.

I took this as a reason to have also a quick look at the lists of linguists’ names in the LBO database. The list contains 24.462 different names from countries all over the world. Though rather evenly distributed I made a top 50 ranking to share with you and here is what we have: the trends in first names of all linguists in LBO:



Dahm-Brey, Corinna: Ungleiche Bildungschancen schon durch Vornamen? – Studie zu Vorurteilen und Vorannahmen von Lehrern

Kaiser, Astrid: Vornamenstudien

Nübling, Damaris: Von Elisabeth zu Lilly, von Klaus zu Nico : Zur Androgynisierung und Infantilisierung der Rufnamen von 1945 bis 2008. In: Genderlinguistik : Sprachliche Konstruktionen von Geschlechtsidentität / Hrsg. von Susanne Günthner ; Dagmar Hüpper ; Constanze Spieß. – Berlin : De Gruyter, 2012. – viii, 450 p. – (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen ; 45), p. 319-358.