‘Medieval style’ in modern exams; Take, for example, the Cantonese word for accounting. It sounds like wui kai in everyday Cantonese. But, in the exam, it should be pronounced as kui kai

‘Medieval style’ in modern exams

Mary Ma

Thursday, March 28, 2013

The shift from the conventional secondary education to the new “3-3-4” system is supposed to keep our education system up to date. Understandably, there were bound to be hiccups in the transition, such as the confusion over liberal studies. Though liberal studies is designated as a compulsory subject alongside Chinese language, English and mathematics, a complaint that is most frequently heard is that it is a “subject at large” without a clear scope.

But that shortcoming is being overcome.

However, when it comes to Chinese, some so-called “mistakes” are laughable.That saw examiners criticizing candidates in Chinese oral exams for saying “iPad” instead of “tablet computer,” and “iPhone” rather than “smartphone.”

The question was then raised whether it was a problem that emanated with the students or the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.

If the iPad and iPhone examples weren’t good – or bad – ones, there were others in Chinese reading where it was difficult to make sense of official answers. Students needed to read an essay to test their Cantonese pronunciation accuracy.

It gave the feeling the authority was as rigid as their counterparts in the field of religion.

Take, for example, the Cantonese word for accounting. It sounds like wui kai in everyday Cantonese. But, in the exam, it should be pronounced as kui kai based on ancient Chinese. So a student may lose marks if he uttered “wui kai” instead of “kui kai.”

Another example is the phrase for a young bird. If an exam candidate said “chor liu” as he or she would normally do in daily conversation, marks may be deducted because – according to the ancient Chinese standards – the candidate should say “ch’ngor liu.”

That is outrageous. Which local would be able to understand “kui kai” and “ch’ngor liu” except for those experts in Chinese linguistics such as professor Richard Ho Man-wui, who is well known for his vigorous promotion of proper Cantonese pronunciation since the 1980s.

Critics of these ridiculous examples may be tempted to hold Ho responsible. It’d be unfair since he was only advocating what he believed to be a worthy cause. Ho was at least able to explain the basis for his advocacy. While one is free to agree or disagree, this doesn’t undermine the respect he is due.

Instead, the examples cast doubt on the authority.

Did it know what it really wanted? If it’s clear, then it should be able to let candidates know the standards according to which readings would be evaluated.

But what are those standards? Is it the ancient Chinese dictionary that Ho often refers to? Or other Chinese dictionaries the authority has yet to make public?

Perhaps the more fundamental question is whether it makes sense at all to force students to adapt to ancient pronunciations that are no longer in common daily usage.

It’s a pathetic situation.

Hong Kong is perhaps the world’s only place requiring students to speak in an ancient linguage during an exam. Is there a similar test in the mainland that asks students from Shanghai, Fujian, Guangdong or Sichuan to have their mother tongue tested as part of a compulsory subject?

It defies common sense.