National Bur'SaU 01 Jiwiuuiuu

Library, N.W. Bldg

FEB 1 1965

Reference book not to be

taken from the library.

^ecltnlcai v|ete 254

ON THE PICTORIAL STRUCTURE OF

CHINESE CHARACTERS

B. KIRK RANKIN, III, WALTER A. SILLARS, AND ROBERT W. HSU

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards is a principal focal point in the Federal Government for assuring

maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. Its responsibilities include development and maintenance of the national stand- ards of measurement, and the provisions of means for making measurements consistent with those

standards; determination of physical constants and properties of materials; development of methods

for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and making such tests as may be necessary, particularly for government agencies; cooperation in the establishment of standard practices for incorporation in codes and specifications; advisory service to government agencies on scientific and technical problems; invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government; assistance

to industry, business, and consumers in the development and acceptance of commercial standards and

simplified trade practice recommendations; administration of programs in cooperation with United

States business groups and standards organizations for the development of international standards of

practice; and maintenance of a clearinghouse for the collection and dissemination of scientific, technical, and engineering information. The scope of the Bureau's activities is suggested in the following

listing of its four Institutes and their organizational units. Institute for Basic Standards. Electricity. Metrology. Heat. Radiation Physics. Mechanics. Applied Mathematics. Atomic Physics. Physical Chemistry. Laboratory Astrophysics.* Radio Standards Laboratory: Radio Standards Physics; Radio Standards Engineering.** Office of Standard Ref- erence Data. Institute for Materials Research. Analytical Chemistry. Polymers. Metallurgy. Inorganic Materials. Reactor Radiations. Cryogenics.** Office of Standard Reference Materials.

Central Radio Propagation Laboratory.** Ionosphere Research and Propagation. Troposphere

and Space Telecommunications. Radio Systems. Upper Atmosphere and Space Physics.

Institute for Applied Technology. Textiles and Apparel Technology Center. Building Research.

Industrial Equipment. Information Technology. Performance Test Development. Instrumentation.

Transport Systems. Office of Technical Services. Office of Weights and Measures. Office of Engineering Standards. Office of Industrial Services.

* NBS Group, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics at the University of Colorado.

* * Located at Boulder, Colorado.
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

Technical Note 254

ISSUED JANUARY 4, 1965

ON THE PICTORIAL STRUCTURE OF

CHINESE CHARACTERS

B. Kirk Rankin, III, Walter A. Sillars, and Robert W. Hsu

NBS Technical Notes are designed to supplement the Bureau's regular publications program. They provide a means for making available scientific data that are of transient or limited interest. Technical Notes may be

listed or referred to in the open literature.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 30 cents

On the Pictorial Structure of Chinese Characters

by

B. Kirk Rankin III Walter A. Sillars

Robert W. Hsu

A grammar of radical combination in Chinese

characters has been written. From a sample study,

it appears that this grammar is powerful enough to

generate 80% of the characters in one of the standard

dictionaries. Research leading to the construction of

this grammar is embedded in a larger framework for

describing the pictorial structure of the characters in

detail. The descriptive framework defines five areas

of study within the overall study of the characters:

radical combination, radical variation, stroke combination, stroke variation, and distinctive features of

strokes

.

A. Extended Notions of Grammar and Language

Modern linguistics is concerned -with the systematic study of

(natural) languages. It typically involves the discovery and analysis of

certain regularities of various kinds, and the expression of these (and

of their interrelationships) in the form of grammars for those

languages. Some types of regularities studied by linguistics are the

relations among sentences; the constituent structure of sentences in

terms of words; word-formation; the constituent structure of words in

terms of sound units; and the specification of sound units in terms of

sound features. — u

Those interested in detailed accounts of modern linguistics might

consult [ l] and [ 2] .

1
It is our contention that sets of data other than natural languages

show many of the same features and regularities as those that are

found in natural languages. Some very preliminary work on the analysis of chemical structure diagrams and electronic circuit diagrams

has indicated that at least the linguistic notion of constituent structure

is quite valuable in describing rather complex diagrams of both types.

One other set of data which shares with these two types of diagrams

both their "two dimensional" nature and their tractability to linguistic

description is the set of Chinese characters. The linguistic analysis

of this set is our concern in this report. —

To summarize: We view the set of characters as a language.

This language shows many regular features similar to features found

in natural languages. Accustomed to constructing grammars to exploit

and explain these regularities in natural languages, we construct a grammar to account for corresponding phenomena in the language of

Chinese characters.

B. The Descriptive Framework

What follows is a general outline of a framework for studying

Chinese characters from a linguistic point of view. The framework or

model is inferred from two sources: Hockett [3] and Lamb [4]. We

1/

Let it be understood that the set of characters we describe is

more or less abstract. What we describe is the manual output

of a hypothetical native writer of Chinese as he prints characters,

We do not describe either cursive handwriting or actual printed

specimens from some font.
are not committed to this particular framework of description. _/ It simply offers us what we want: a convenient framework for presenting

our research results; in the long run, it may turn out to be inadequate

or in some sense undesirable. The model imposes the following stair^

way structure on our language of Chinese characters:

CHARACTER — C —RADICAL

R

I RADICAL — C —STROKE

VARIANT | R

I C = "is composed of" STROKE DISTINCTIVE

R = "is represented by" VARIANT — C — COMPONENT

C. Characters are Composed of Radicals

Ours is not, by any means, the only way of describing the structure of Chinese characters in terms of radical-combination. The system in most common use, by both Chinese scholars and Western sino2/

logists, is that of classification according to radical and phonetic —

1/

2/

And we specifically do not pretend to speak officially for the

"Stratificational" school of linguistics, -which appears to take

as basic to their theory the two sources just cited.

The traditional approach described here is essentially a means of

getting into a dictionary. It does not pretend to be a detailed study

of character structure such as we are offerring.
Traditional Chinese scholarship recognizes 214 distinguished characters called radicals, some of which have variant forms. (See the list

displayed in Appendix A. ) Each character is either itself a radical or may be decomposed into a radical plus a residue which is generally

called the phonetic.

The ideal to -which the traditional system aspires is a quite simple

system. When a character is decomposed into radical and phonetic,

the radical gives a clue to the meaning of the character and the

phonetic a clue to its pronunciation. The traditional algorithm which

identifies the radical in the majority of cases is as follows:

If the character naturally splits into a left side and right side,

the left side is the radical; otherwise, if the character

naturally splits into a top and a bottom, then the bottom is

the radical.

However, there are many characters for which this procedure does

not give the correct radical. These characters may be divided into

two classes:

1. Those to which the algorithm does not apply, since the

character does not have either a natural left- right or topbottom split, for example, yff\ , whose radical is P , and

2. Those for which the algorithm determines a radical other

than the correct one, for example, /^0 , whose radical is

@ • A more elaborate algorithm for identifying the radical is described

in Chao [ 5] , Mathews [ 6] , and many other sources, including nearly

every Chinese-English dictionary. It runs somewhat as follows:

1. If the character is itself a radical, then it is its own radical.

4
2. If the character has a natural left- right split and

a. If the right side is one of the small number of radicals

which can occur on the right, then the right side is the

radical; otherwise,

b. If the left side is a radical, then the left side is the

radical; if not, use the "look-up" procedure in step 5.

3. If neither 1 nor 2 applies, and if the character has a natural

top -bottom split and

a. If the top is one of the small number of radicals which

can occur on the top, then the top is the radical;

otherwise,

b. If the bottom is a radical, then the bottom is the radical;

if not, use the "look-up" procedure in step 5.

4. If none of the above apply, use the procedure for determining

the radical of a character whose natural split is into a border and an inside, or which is formed by the superimposition of two or more parts. If this procedure determines the

radical, the job is finished; if not,

5. Consult a table of characters "whose radicals are difficult to

determine by inspection.

There seem to be at least two obvious weak points in this algorithm,

namely:

1. The procedure to be followed in step 4 is not explicit; for

example, the radical of [jd is

\

, while that of \^n is

a

When we consider in addition to these the fact that the list of difficult
characters — in Mathews includes over 10% of the total number of

characters in this dictionary, it is easy to see why the traditional

analysis of characters is cumbersome to use when searching a dictionary for an unfamiliar character.

We feel that the procedure of assigning to each character an

associated character chosen from a list of distinguished characters

is a useful tool for classifying the characters; however, we also feel

that the defects in the traditional classification scheme make that

particular system unfeasible for mechanical recognition purposes and

not particularly desirable for other purposes. Therefore, we have in

Appendix B a list which, when finished, is intended to replace in our

work the traditional list of 214 radicals. This list has been arrived

at by observing combinations of strokes which recur often enough to

prompt us to recognize them as "linguistic" units.

We have written a grammar similar to Chomsky's phrase2/

structure grammars — which seems to be capable of generating

approximately 80% of the characters in Mathews [6] . This grammar is

exhibited in Appendix B. The manner in which the grammar operates,

along with some of the difficulties we have encountered, is illustrated

by a small-scale grammar DZ4 given as follows:

u

2/

That is those characters whose radicals are not obvious

See Chapter 4 in [7]
The grammar DZ4 consists of a finite number of rewrite rules.

These rules are grouped into two classes, syntactic and lexical. The

syntactic rules have the form A = X or A = a (X, Y) where A, X and Y

are nodes of the grammar and a is one of the three symbols h, v, or s. The lexical rules have the form A = R where A is a node and R is a radical. For our purposes a node is any symbol which occurs as a constituent on the left side of some rule (either syntactic or lexical),

and a radical is any symbol which occurs on the right side of a lexical

rule. There are no symbols which are both nodes and radicals. The

syntactic rules correspond to those rules in a phrase- structure

grammar which generate from the top node down to the immediate subterminal level; the lexical rules correspond to those which generate

the terminal symbols.

We use the customary left-to- right expansion convention, except

that all syntactic rules are applied before any lexical rules. The rules

of the grammar DZ4 are as follows:

Syntactic Rules

CHAR = COMP; IT - COMP = v (N, S); h (W, E); s (O, CHAR)

N = COMP; NT

S = COMP; ST

W = COMP; WT

E = COMP; ET

O = OT

1/ The semicolon separates optional subrules; this line is really an

abbreviation for the two rules: CHAR = COMP and CHAR = IT.
1/

{

1/

a. -

a

1'

n

Lexical Rules

WT ET NT ST OT IT

x

x

Of course these two radicals may, in the long run, prove to be

variants of a single radical. However, that fact need not prevent

us from using them in a sample grammar as two different

radicals.
CHAR (= Character) is the initial or top node of the grammar.

CHAR can be rewritten as COMP, which eventually gives a complex

(i.e. , multi- radical) character. It can also be rewritten as IT, a symbol which heads a column in the lexical rules, the column consisting of terminal symbols which can occur in isolation. COMP can be

rewritten as a vertical array having top N (North) and bottom S (South), a horizontal array having left W (West) and right E (East), or a surrounding array having border O (Outside) and inside CHAR (any

character). N can be rewritten either as COMP (note that this option

introduces a potentially infinite loop into the grammar) or as NT, the

heading of a column of terminal symbols in the lexical rules which

can occur on the top of a vertical array. The situation is similar for

the remaining rules except that the border of a surrounding display

cannot consist of a complex character.

Some examples of characters which DZ4 can generate are \ j ,

I ill ' ~^3s» ' 1r f ' anc* rt ii ' Although not all of these are in fact

in use, they are all well-formed and acceptable to informants.
The steps in the generation of -ijj/ are:

Syntactic Steps

CHAR

COMP

W,E)

WT,E)

WT, COMP)

WT, s (O, CHAR))

WT, s (OT, CHAR))

WT, s (OT, COMP))

WT, s (OT, v (N, S)))

WT, s (OT, v (NT, S)))

WT, s (OT, v (NT, ST)))

Lexical Steps

s (OT, v (NT, ST)))

s ( P , v (NT, ST)))

s ( Q , v ( + , ST)))

b ( EJ , v ( + , a )))

We will now discuss some currently unresolved problems concerning our grammar, specifically as they relate to the grammar displayed in Appendix B although most of our examples are chosen from

DZ4.

i

10
First is the question of recursion. Recall that in DZ4 there is a potentially infinite loop through the node COMP. This has the effect of

asserting that there is no upper bound on the size of the characters, so

that \ S is just as well-formed as

\ \

, "^ "H , etc

y v^

We are not satisfied with this feature of the grammar, but neither are

we pleased with the thought of putting an arbitrary upper bound on the

number of recursions permitted.

The second problem is actually an extreme case of the first.

There is nothing in the grammar to prevent an arbitrarily long re- cursion process which generates exclusively horizontal or exclusively

vertical strings. That is, the grammar contains sub-grammars like

which give rise to terminal arrays like tZj^jrJii- \i~ ^fj which does

not satisfy our intuition as to what ought to constitute a well-formed

character. Our tentative conclusion is that the grammar should have

a device associated with it that would force an alternation between

horizontal and vertical rules. For those relatively few characters

which allow more than one successive application of a horizontal (or

vertical rule) a list would have to be constructed.

Third, the grammars (both the one in Appendix B and DZ4)

generate some characters in more than one way. In the appended

11
grammar, for example, &&Y ^ s g enerated both as a combination of

"= « and -7+- and as a corabination of "=" and j3-4- .

There is strong motivation for multiple generations in a grammar

for generating sentences of a natural language. In such cases we say

that the given sentence is syntactically ambiguous. There will, in

general, be one semantic interpretation for each syntactic parse of a sentence. To illustrate, consider the following two possible derivations of the sentence

They are flying planes

in some phrase-structure grammar for a subset of English:

1. TOP

They

2.

Ax

are flying

TOP

p lanes

They are flying planes

However, we are far from certain as to what, if anything, is the analog

to diverse semantic interpretations in syntactically ambiguous

characters.

At this point we also call the reader's attention to two features of

our grammar which we consider to be defects and to indicate how they

will be overcome in a future version. These features are

(a) The apparently arbitrary assignment of certain radicals to

certain geometric positions, for example, the assignment

of Jto the north, and

(b) The listing as single terminals of characters whose immediate constituent structure cannot be expressed in terms

of the grammar, for example J& . 12
Consider the radical J~~ , for example. Within the limits of the

types of geometric structures handled by our grammar, there are three

possible assignments of J to a terminal class, namely, north, west,

and outside. We (somewhat, but not entirely arbitrarily) assign 1

to the north, J to the south, and, in general, when a radical

includes a vertical and a horizontal side we assign it to the horizontal.

Besides having the advantage of making a definite decision, this is

probably a more natural choice than either of the others, since it seems that the class of radicals which can occur with, say, J

, has

more in common with those that can occur with radicals which beyond

doubt belong to the north terminal class, such as

v ' , than it has with,

say, those which can occur inside I J

. For similar reasons, [1

is treated as an outside rather than as two separate radicals, one west

terminal and one east terminal.

A still better solution, which is in the process of being incorpo -

rated into the grammar, consists of an increase in the number of

basic operations and a refinement of the co-occurrence classes. In

the next version of the grammar we will consider /cfj , \$* > /Zj

and f*jg to be generated by four different binary operations, each

having its own distinct set of co-occurrence restrictions.

The fact that we do not partition y*L into those constituents,

namely, j^N a- n(^L ^3 , of which it is traditionally held to be composed,

is explained by the fact that the grammar does not have a superimposition operation. However, this is not so much a justification of our

choice as an admission that the grammar is incomplete. An examination of the 300 characters in Wang [8] indicates that up to 10% of these

would be more naturally treated by means of a superimposition

operation than by means of the non-overlapping operations exclusively.

To incorporate this operation will require detailed study of

13
"superimposed" characters with a view to defining in detail new co- occurrence classes.

In addition to these, we wish to mention two further questions

which arise in the consideration of grammars for Chinese characters.

These questions are of a more general nature than those just considered in that they are not tied to any particular grammar or even to

any particular model of language.

The first of these is the question of well-formedness in general.

That is, what is the class of characters which we want our grammar

to generate? We clearly would not be satisfied with a grammar which

generated all the characters in Mathews [6] and no more, for it would

have no predictive power and thus would not be able to account for

those characters which Mathews omits, those coined since its publication and those which will be coined in the future.

This is a perplexing problem but one which has been encountered

previously by linguists working with (spoken) natural languages. We

seem to be driven to the classic field technique of informant response.

We are, in other words, forced to rely on the intuition of a native

writer of Chinese as to what does and what does not constitute a wellformed character. Thus, on the analogy of ifth 'Tk'vL » an<^ / l'j ' we

construct "vj -- which does not occur in Mathews -- and offer it to

our informant for his evaluation. The informant accepts it (in this

case) as being well-formed, i.e., a reasonable combination of radicals,

and therefore the power to generate -4f-TJ is added to our minimal

requirements for an acceptable grammar.

The second problem is that of partitioning the set of radicals into

classes in such a way that all members of a given class play a similar

role in the grammar. In other words, it is the problem of finding an

operational definition of radical. We decide whether a group of strokes

14
is one radical or should be cut into two or more subgroups by the

following criterion. We accept a proposed division of a group of

strokes into two or more subgroups if and only if for each of the

smaller groups resulting from the proposed cut there are many combinations of strokes which can replace it without requiring any change

in the remainder of the original group.

For example, we consider g£ to be composed of two radicals

( A'./f and c£ ) rather than three since our intuition rebels at the

thought of changing one part of /? A* without changing the other. Also

we would not divide = into "-" and CZ since, although there are

VX

» to many combinations -which can occur over tj , there are few if any

other than 12 which can occur under *s* .

However, it must be admitted that not all of the terminals in the

grammar in Appendix B were arrived at by this operational definition

of radical. The definition problem remains perplexing.

D. Radicals are Represented by Radical Variants

It has been a part of the traditional view of radicals to list several

variant forms for some radicals. Thus, for example, /V and A

are said to be variant forms of radical "9" — and 4?„ and -r are said

to be variant forms of radical "162".

We accept the view that some radicals have variant forms. However, we depart from tradition in that we list many more instances of

multivariant radicals than occur in the traditional list. Looked at

carefully, the data yield quite a number of instances of radical variation -- many more than are found in the traditional list.

u

Numbers in quotes refer to radicals of the traditional list. See

Appendix A.

15
A relatively trivial phenomenon is size variation. When a radical

such as "86" stands in isolation as a character as in KJ'X , it has, let

us say, normal size; when it is embedded in a simple character as in

v^l_i , it is smaller. Finally, when it is embedded in a more complex

character as in .y; [_, , it is much smaller. One of the problems in this

research is to determine how many size-variants there are per radical.

A related phenomenon to that of size is that of shape. Sometimes

when a radical is embedded in a character, not only is it reduced in

size, but also its shape is distorted. For example, note the shape

variation of radical "75" in /JQ and ^t .

Of course, /J and ^^ are still intuitively recognizable as being

instances of the same radical. There are other cases which are not so clear-cut. For example, "j and /\^ are traditionally considered

variants of radical "9", but one feels that this is at least an extreme

case of radical variation. This is directly analogous to the phenomenon

of suppletion in natural language. An example of suppletive forms in

English is "good" and the "bett-" and "be-" elements in "better" and

"best. " These are similar in meaning and noncontrastive in distribution. However, they are phonemically completely dissimilar.

One begins to search for constraints on radical variation. A perhaps sufficient constraint might be that two candidates for being radical

variants of the same radical must be pictorially similar. Pictorial

similarity — remains to be defined precisely, but an idea of our intuition about it can be seen from our tentative solution of the /\ ~

u

The linguist will of course, see in this the analog of phonetic

similarity as a constraint on the grouping of complementarily

distributed phones into one phoneme.

16
/

| problem. Both y\ and 'f are grouped into the same radical,

because they are both sufficiently described by some abstract

structural statement like: Radical "9" consists of a northeast-tosouthwest stroke which is joined L-wise to a non-west-to-east stroke.

(See the next section for a discussion of L-adjoining. ) A related phenomenon is that of stroke- sharing. Often, when two

radicals combine into a character, they partially overlap to the extent

that one stroke of each radical occupies the same space. A clear case

of stroke- sharing is in the character subpart -^Az , where X/ and "TT share a stroke. At this point we mention that the rules to cover cases

such as this, i. e. , the rules corresponding to the morphophonemic

rules in a grammar for a spoken language, are tacitly assumed to be

applied in our grammar whenever relevant. —

E. Radical Variants are Composed of Strokes

It is clear from even a superficial study of the internal structure

of radicals and their variants that there are regularities to be observed

in the phenomenon of stroke-adjoinment. For example — , J

, and

^

may combine to produce _^> , but they may not combine to

produce J and J-"~"

, for these latter two are not well-formed.

1/

Stroke- sharing is of course closely related to the phenomenon

of superimposition mentioned above.

17
There seem to be four common adjoining operations. First, there

is T adjoinment as in "T~ , where and J combine T-wise. Then

there is L adjoining: and J combine L-wise to produce I*

There is also X-adjoining, where two strokes intersect to form a radical or radical subpart. An example is the combination of and

I to form ~| . Finally, there is an operation which does not actually

adjoin two strokes, but which rather places them in a "near" relation;

and — are adjoined by the near-operation in .

The task here is to devise rules powerful enough to state the internal structure of all the radicals in terms of their constituent

strokes and the stroke operations. We have in fact constructed a very

preliminary finite-state grammar to represent these stroke-adjoining

operations. This grammar, though perhaps promising, does fail on

two counts. First, it cannot account for many radicals which seem

to have nearly unique structures and, second, it seems to be able to

account for many multiradical structures. — Thus, it seems to be at

present both too weak and too strong.

F. Strokes Are Represented By Stroke- Variants

The model does define this area of research. However, we are

not sure that this is a particularly fruitful area. There seem, in fact,

to be very few instances of strokes with variant shapes. One possibility

1/

Such as i3» , a traditional radical, but decomposable into -—

12 , r] , and V3 .

18
is a stroke which has the two variants I and y . It might be

characterized as a "vertical hooked stroke", the direction of the

hook being predictable from the environment in which it occurs. Of

course, every stroke has size variants, but this is almost a trivial

observation.

G. Stroke Variants are Composed of Distinctive Components

It is presumably the case that each stroke-variant can be uniquely

specified by a particular combination of distinctive components. Such

components and their values would perhaps include:

Ending: Hooked, Nonhooked

(This would distinguish J from [/ Direction: North-South, East-West, etc. : versus -—* .

Size: Large, Small: —— versus — in ,J~-

H. Concluding Remark

It is expected that future work will provide much more in the way

of results in the last four areas. As future work is pursued, much

time will be devoted to work with native informants. The final step

will be to express the results of this analysis in the form of a completed formal grammar.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For reading earlier versions of this paper and for making valuable

suggestions, we wish to thank Margaret R. Fox, Ethel C. Marden, and

J. Wegstein of the Information Technology Division; and R. A. Kirsch

and W. Watt of the Applied Mathematics Division. We are further

indebted to Mr. Kirsch for introducing to us the notion of "picture

syntax" which underlies our approach to this problem. Finally, we

wish to thank C. Chriss and D. Lottridge of the Information Technology

19
Division for the statistical tests relating to our statement concerning

the adequacy of the grammar in Appendix B.

REFERENCES

1. Hockett, Charles F. A Course in Modern Linguistics,

Macmillan, New York, 1958.

2. Gleason, H. A. , Jr. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics;

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, (Revised Edition) 1961.

3. Hockett, Charles F. "Linguistic Elements and Their Relations, 1 Language, Vol.37, No.l; pp. 29-53; 1961.

4. Lamb. Sydney. Outline of Stratificational Grammar, University

of California, 1962.

5. Chao, Y. R. Mandarin Primer, Cambridge, Mass., 1961.

6. Mathews, R. H. A Chinese-English Dictionary, Harvard

University Press, Cambridge, Mass., (Revised American

Edition) I960.

7. Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures, Mouton and Company,

s 'Gravenhage, The Netherlands, 1957.

8. Wang, F-Y. Read Chinese, New Haven, 1961.

20
10

12

13

14

APPENDIX A

LIST OF TRADITIONAL 214 RADICALS, WITH VARIANT FORMS SHOWN

I

L

J

15

16

17

18

J

JL

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

u

71

fl

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

P

nli

27

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

X

a

43

±

44

45

46

47

t %-

3"

48

49

50

51

52

53

L

7L

54

55

56

57

58

dj

59

60

61 X

62

rp

63

4,

M

i;

—7

J3_

/

/

A\>\1

;>^

*

•

/ \
65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

-]- 79 I

80

81 \ 82

83

84

85

/J8

86

a3

87

/V? f

88

89

90

91

92

n 93

it

/J- 106

94

A

95

96

7\\\/

//N ##

/I ^

Jf

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105 ?#V

107

108

109

10 4£

in

112

113 ^

i+ ^

114

115

116

117

118

>^ 119 / 120

137

121

122

\1

\MN

/v

\/

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

A-t

/-A *

131

132

IJ77

3r mt

ifiV4

1*1

ft. g
133

134

135 £

148 ^n

£3

149

CZ

164 £

150 &

165

ffi £

177

178

179 *

194

i, 195

196 t

.4i n l ^

136 #

151 166

v:Z SL

180 197

137 4

152 167 ^4

181 5

198 I /£*.

138

139

140 &s

ft

153

154

155

168 %g*

169

K.A

PI

182

183

184

;n4

ft.

199

200

201 ^w

*-/-

156 -^

170 185 ~t If

202

141 ,_ 157

a IT 186 4

203

142

143 £

vv7?

158

159 , 171 $

172 *

IE

187

188 f

204

205

Mi. m

144

145

160 173 *J f

^L

161 J! %

162 1

174 *

*T&

189

190 i

,91

Pi ^H

206

207

208

A

146

147

l5&

163 Z.

1^7

175

176

#-

IS

192

193

209 5 210 PH

7T

^k
211

212

213

214

n an

fflg
APPENDIX B

Grammars of this type are fully explained on pages 6, 7, and 8.

The numbers which appear in the left -most column of the lexical rules

refer to the number of strokes per radical in the list of radicals below

the number.

Grammar of radical -combination

Syntactic Rules

COMP; IT

v (N,S); h(W, E); S(0, CHAR)

COMP; NT

CHAR

COMP

N

S

w

E

O

COMP; ST

COMP; WT

COMP; ET

OT

25
LEXICAL RULES

I. WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

L

x L

XX X "gi

XX J

1,

XXX

X X

Vxx U

x Hi

A

T x x A

x x A x x x x

2. A x x x x

J\ x a XXX

« >< t X x
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

;l

41i x x x x

jl x x x x

T

>c

xxx

X X

h>

n

l-~7

/ v

7L

xxx

X X

/ x

/v

+

r

1

X X X X

p

i x XXX

r

n

/
3. WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

it

ZT

2

A

/L,

T

XXX

XXX

X X

£.

/T

•5 x

a x x x x

4r

f

1

x

r

-k x

XXX

X X

_±_ X X X X

il± x X X X

X X

X X X X X

XXX

X X J^ X X X X
r

a

li\ X X X X * XXX

j

i

«,

4 x

X X

> x

"f ><

4

-tt X X

3-

£

X X X X

X X

K x XXX

?-

rh x

T

} x

XXX

X X

1

X

*

\/

X X

X X

X X

3 X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

{>

a

d x

c

S

n

4.

J X

i

r

X X

#

i

^ X

A

'\

X X

X X

X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

±

4-

x x

7\

T x

D x

n

x

k

% x

x x

X X X X

p

m

£

* X X

4 x

jL x

4

^

4

£

7, x

Jt.

X X

X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

*

ft x

S.

+

7

t

'J

it

h.

f x

I T

B X X X X

^

*.

*

XXX

XXX

^r x x x x

E7 xx

7X X £ X X X X

AJ X X

£

^

X X

X X X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT ^

AA

fa x

?

A

ft x

&

t

7

X X

X X

#

a

ra

.t

X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

/a x

^ X

IT

A

it

f

£

j|/

^t

£

£

t,

I

/$

T~-

X X

X X X X

X X

•27 x

4k

tT7?

X X

T7_ X X X

JL x # x

-%- X X

^

X

^ X & x x

If? X X XX

xxx

% X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

fc . x x & x

13b X X X -^ X

& X X X #) X

;

IT

X X X x 1^ X

6- *k x

f x

X P X

^J. xx 4H XX

i X X X T^

IS X X X X x

iXZ7 ^ X x ^V

If x £

r£) x ^

7C;

& x x X #>

-^ XX

X X X X X j^
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

T- ±

E x x

K * x

fe

X X X X *

M *

* A x X

$ x X X & 5

.Is

X X

-ft

x X X W 9i

# x

t

I

A- A'

£ x li|

tftj

X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

i

f

(3

X X

Jf X X

2.m

f X X

%

ij

7.

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X XXX

<k

it

5

f x

f

a. X X

V /
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

m X «1^ &-

fjk. x X X X JL

& X X X X

Sfc X X X X *

X X X X

fr

f.

* A

X X

PI x x XXX £

-ft

1.3 ?, X X

X)A

^ x X

* x

a X X

I

x

*JL x X X

* x

it XXX
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT

i X X fa

*

7ffc

^

4

XXX

fe

*rt

i:

p£j

^ XXX

9-plus £ X X

X X
WT ET NT ST OT IT WT ET NT ST OT IT £

tb

t2tt

ill

"f" x

0^

%



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20230

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMME*