Category: Languages

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔxì

yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 8, 2021. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

[A past] MEotW post mentioned that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in the Indo-European language family. This concept of a language family is used in modern linguistic genealogical (or genetic) language classification:

A language family is a group of languages related through descent from a common ancestral language or parental language, called the proto-language of that family. The term “family” reflects the tree model of language origination in historical linguistics, which makes use of a metaphor comparing languages to people in a biological family tree…Linguists therefore describe the daughter languages within a language family as being genetically related.[source]

The Mandarin Translation

As confirmed by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair in his article “The Classification of Sinitic Languages: What Is ‘Chinese’?” (p. 747), an accepted and acceptable Mandarin translation for “language family” is “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, this week’s MEotW.

The “yǔ (language; speech | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)” means “language”, particularly, the speech of a language, which modern linguists (language scientists) recognize to be the primary aspect of a language.

“Xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)”, as used in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, literally means “tied [(things)]”, and effectively means “system”, “series”, or “family”. Note that in this usage, the character “系” is the same in both simplified and traditional forms. Looking up the character “系” in the dictionary can get tricky, because the simplified character “系” can correspond to the traditional characters “系”, “係”, and also “繫”, all of which have different, though sometimes related, meanings. This is an example of the complexities and vagaries of characters in general, and of how simplified and traditional characters relate to each other, as mentioned in the MEotW post on “jiǎntǐ (jiǎn·tǐ simplified · {body → [style] → [typeface; font]} → [simplified Chinese] 简体 簡體) zì (characters 字)”.

BTW, an interesting other usage of “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” is in “Yín Hé ((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) Xì ({Tied (Things)} → [System] → [Galaxy] 系)”, in which “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” effectively means “galaxy”.

Pinwheel Galaxy

The Pinwheel Galaxy, another kind of xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)

The Mandarin Connection Is…Complicated

We have discussed that English and Spanish are generally considered by modern linguists to be in different groups in the Indo-European language family. How about Mandarin? What is Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

Unfortunately, the answer to this seemingly simple question is complicated, by at least two major factors.

One complicating factor is that scientific genetic (or genealogical) language classification itself is not a fully worked out thing. The Encyclopædia Britannica put it this way:

So far, most of the languages of the world have been grouped only tentatively into families, and many of the classificatory schemes that have been proposed will no doubt be radically revised as further progress is made.

Another complicating factor was mentioned in the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

China’s central government is highly motivated to convince people that China is one unified political and cultural entity which should thus be governed by one central government—them

Yes, there is an excess of politics and its propaganda when it comes to the language situation in China, perhaps resulting in a relative dearth of actual scientific research into that situation. Additionally, pervasive political and cultural pressures tend to induce unscientific distortions and self-censorship in whatever research does get done. In his article mentioned above (p. 749), Prof. Mair describes the situation this way:

The contentious, non-scientific nature of the debate over the SLG/F [Sinitic (Chinese) Language Group/Family] is manifest in the circumlocutions used to designate its constituent members: “speech forms,” “varieties,” “styles,” “regionalects,” “dialects” (no matter how far up or down the taxonomic scale one may go), and so forth. At the same time, scholars openly admit that the main reasons why they do not use normal linguistic terminology (family, group, branch, language, dialect) in dealing with the SLG/F are due to sociopolitical and cultural factors. The fallacy of such a bizarre approach is evident when one considers that all nations have special sociopolitical and cultural circumstances, yet an impartial analytical outlook does not allow such circumstances to interfere with pure linguistic research.

The Mandarin Connection—A Common View

In view of the complications mentioned above, what can be said at this time about Mandarin’s place in its language family tree?

At this time, it seems to be traditionally accepted that there is a Sino-Tibetan language family, and that Mandarin is a language (some would unscientifically say “dialect”) in the Sinitic branch of this language family.

It should be noted, however, that even the Wikipedia article on the Sino-Tibetan language family says that there is not yet convincing evidence that the Sino- and Tibetan parts of this hypothetical language family are actually connected in the way that would justify considering them to be together in the same language family:

Several low-level subgroups have been securely reconstructed, but reconstruction of a proto-language for the family as a whole is still at an early stage, so the higher-level structure of Sino-Tibetan remains unclear. Although the family is traditionally presented as divided into Sinitic (i.e. Chinese) and Tibeto-Burman branches, a common origin of the non-Sinitic languages has never been demonstrated.

The Mandarin Connection—Prof. Mair’s View

From my research so far, I have come to consider Prof. Mair, mentioned above, to be the most knowledgeable and trustworthy living authority I know of on the language situation in China.1 The following are some points he made in a relatively recent article, mentioned above, on how Sinitic (Chinese) languages like Mandarin should be classified:

If efforts to link Sinitic with other major language groups continue to be as unconvincing as they have been to date, it may well be that Sinitic will end up being classified as a family unto itself. Because it remains to be determined whether Sinitic is a group or a family, I provisionally style it the Sinitic Language Group/Family (SLG/F). (p. 737)

Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages. Cantonese is not a ‘dialect’ of Mandarin or of Hanyu, and it is grossly erroneous to refer to it as such. Since Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages (or, perhaps more accurately, separate branches), it is wrong to refer to them as ‘dialects.’ The same holds for Hokkien, Shanghainese, and so forth. (p. 737)

I…remain agnostic [non-committal] about whether the SLG/F is actually a family unto itself or whether it is more or less closely linked to some other group(s)─such as Tibeto-Burman or Austronesian─in a family (p. 745)

The scientific classification of languages should not be held hostage to extra-linguistic political and cultural prejudices. (p. 746)

In the scientific classification of modern Sinitic languages, as much as possible, data should be drawn from the strikingly different spoken varieties, not from standard written forms. Writing is a second-order linguistic phenomenon. Since most speakers of Sinitic throughout prehistory and history have been illiterate, the nonessentiality of writing for the existence of the SLG/F is self-evident. (pp. 746–747)

The classification of the SLG/F, both internally and externally, is still in the beginning stages; much difficult work remains to be done. (p. 750)

‘Chinese’, ‘dialect’, and other terms in broad popular usage should be employed with extreme caution in technical discussions of the countless varieties of speech forms that currently exist and that have existed at various periods and places during the past in the East Asian Heartland (EAH) and Extended East Asian Heartland (EEAH) (p. 750)

There is an urgent need for the classification of the SLG/F, but this cannot be accomplished satisfactorily without precise, linguistically justifiable terminology. (p. 751)

The people of China have a right to conceive and speak of the languages of their country however they wish; linguists of the world have a duty to study the languages of China according to universal principles. If linguists abandon their scientific duty, the current chaos and lack of consensus concerning the nature of Sinitic will continue, much to the detriment of our understanding not only of the languages of China, but to linguistics as a whole. (p. 751)

Be Wary of What You May Hear About Mandarin

So, as we seek to learn Mandarin, let us keep in mind that while others—including well-meaning ones who are sincerely sharing what they themselves learned—may tell us certain things about Mandarin and how it relates to other varieties of speech, some of what they tell us may not be scientifically verified truth. More research needs to be done in some areas. Also, unfortunately, we need to be wary of the abundant political and cultural propaganda that has been spread about Mandarin and about the language situation in China in general.

1. American linguist, sinologist, author of Chinese language textbooks, lexicographer of Chinese dictionaries, and Professor Emeritus of Chinese Studies at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa John DeFrancis was also an exceptionally knowledgeable and trustworthy authority on the language situation in China. Sadly, he passed away in 2009. He did leave behind many excellent writings, though. I highly recommend his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984). ^

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Languages Names Science

Yuèyǔ

Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, is a term that over the years one may occasionally have come across in the Chinese fields. For example, it used to be used on publication download pages on jw.org, where it has been replaced by a term that is more familiar to many: “Guǎngdōnghuà (Guǎng·dōng·huà {Wide · East → [Canton]} · Speech → [Cantonese speech/language] 广东话 廣東話)” (“Cantonese”).

The Language(s)

Regarding “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, the Wikipedia article on Yue Chinese provides this summary:

Yue (Cantonese pronunciation: [jyːt̚˨]) is a branch of the Sinitic languages primarily spoken in Southern China, particularly in the provinces of Guangdong and Guangxi (collectively known as Liangguang).

The term Cantonese is often used to refer to the whole branch, but linguists prefer to reserve the name Cantonese for the variety used in Guangzhou (Canton), Wuzhou (Ngchow), Hong Kong and Macau, which is the prestige dialect of the group. Taishanese, from the coastal area of Jiangmen (Kongmoon) located southwest of Guangzhou, was the language of most of the 19th-century emigrants from Guangdong to Southeast Asia and North America. Most later migrants have been speakers of Cantonese.

Yue varieties are not mutually intelligible with other varieties of Chinese,[source] and they are not mutually intelligible within the Yue family either.[source]

This Wikipedia page also cites Ethnologue as saying that the number of native speakers worldwide of Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語) was recently about “86 million (2022)[source]”. That’s not as many as Mandarin has (no other language/language branch currently has as many native speakers as Mandarin does), but that’s still a lot of people.

Regarding how Cantonese relates to other Chinese speech varieties, note the following excerpt from the MEotW post on “yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族)”:

It’s interesting to note that according to Prof. [Victor H.] Mair’s article (p. 737) mentioned above, not only are Mandarin and Cantonese separate languages (not just “dialects”), it would be more accurate to consider them to be in separate language branches, as defined by the language classisification scheme he uses:

Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages. Cantonese is not a ‘dialect’ of Mandarin or of Hanyu, and it is grossly erroneous to refer to it as such. Since Cantonese and Mandarin are separate languages (or, perhaps more accurately, separate branches), it is wrong to refer to them as ‘dialects.’ The same holds for Hokkien, Shanghainese, and so forth.

That Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be in separate language branches emphasizes to us politically neutral Mandarin field language-learners that we must not repeat or be misled by the politically motivated erroneous assertion that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are just dialects of “Chinese”. That might be even more wrong than saying that English, French, Spanish, etc. are just dialects of “European”!

Some Geography

To clarify regarding some of the places related to “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”:

  • Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東)
  • Guǎngzhōu (Guǎng·zhōu Wide · Prefecture → [Guangzhou (Canton (city))] 广州 廣州)
    • This is the capital city of Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東) province.
  • Guǎngxī (Guǎng·xī Wide · West → [Guangxi (Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region)] 广西 廣西)
    • This is an autonomous region that’s located just to the west of Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東).

Some History

This summary from the Wikipedia article on Baiyue provides us with some historical background:

The Baiyue, Hundred Yue, or simply Yue, were various ethnic groups who inhabited the regions of Southern China and Northern Vietnam during the 1st millennium BC and 1st millennium AD.[source][source][source] They were known for their short hair, body tattoos, fine swords, and naval prowess.

…

The Yue tribes were gradually displaced or assimilated into Chinese culture as the Han empire expanded into what is now Southern China and Northern Vietnam.[source][source][source][source] Many modern southern Chinese dialects bear traces of substrate languages[citation needed] originally spoken by the ancient Yue. Variations of the name are still used for the name of modern Vietnam [Yuènán (Yuè·nán Yue · South → [Vietnam] 越南)], in Zhejiang-related names including Yue opera, the Yue Chinese language, and in the abbreviation for Guangdong.

…

The modern term “Yue” (traditional Chinese: 越、粵; simplified Chinese: 越、粤; pinyin: Yuè; Cantonese Jyutping: Jyut6; Wade–Giles: Yüeh4; Vietnamese: Việt; Early Middle Chinese: Wuat) comes from Old Chinese *ɢʷat.[source] It was first written using the pictograph 戉 for an axe (a homophone), in oracle bone and bronze inscriptions of the late Shang dynasty (c. 1200 BC), and later as 越.[source]

Is Cantonese Only Spoken?

Native Cantonese speakers I have known, like those in the Cantonese congregation that I used to be in, would tell me that the Cantonese we spoke was spoken Chinese, and that the Chinese in the official publications of the time, which was different in some ways from spoken Cantonese, was written Chinese. However, as I gained more knowledge about the history and the language situation of China, I came to understand that actually, the Chinese writing in the publications we were using was Mandarin, which was used because Mandarin-speaking people had gained political power in China, resulting in Chinese publications generally being published in Mandarin—it wasn’t a matter of spoken and written Chinese being different, but rather, of Cantonese and Mandarin being different.

Eventually, the organization came to also publish publications written in other Chinese varieties in addition to Mandarin. As of this writing, searching for “Chinese” on jw.org results in the following options, which includes Cantonese options:

Chinese varieties on jw.org as of 2024-04-14

Something to Remember

This week’s MEotW, “Yuèyǔ (Yuè·yǔ Yue · Language [→ [Cantonese]] 粤语 粵語)”, reminds us that while the central government of China wants everyone to just think of China as one monolithic political entity that should be governed by them, the central government, modern China actually is made up of many different parts. If it wasn’t for Qín Shǐhuáng ((Qín {Qin (dynasty)} 秦) (Shǐ·huáng Beginning · Emperor 始皇) (the founder of the Qín dynasty and the first emperor of China)) (Wikipedia article), who (rather forcefully) united several warring states and became the first emperor of China, China could have ended up like modern Europe, with its several independent nations.

These different parts of modern China, that in an alternate timeline could have become independent nations, each have their own history, including their own linguistic history—just like modern France, Spain, Germany, etc. have historically had their own mutually unintelligible languages, modern Guǎngdōng (Guǎng·dōng Wide · East → [Guangdong (Canton) Province] 广东 廣東), Shànghǎi (Shàng·hǎi Upon · {the Sea} → [Shanghai] 上海), Fújiàn (Fú·jiàn {Blessing (abbr. for the city name Fúzhōu)} · {Established (abbr. for the city name Jiànzhōu)} → [Fujian (Province)] 福建), etc. also have historically had their own mutually unintelligible languages, even if China’s central government would like everyone to just (erroneously) call them dialects of “Chinese”. This reality of China’s many mutually unintelligible languages is being emphasized, not for any political purpose, but rather, to help us language learners in the Chinese fields to be equipped with the truth as we try to make practical progress in learning and using Chinese languages to spread our God-honouring and life-saving message.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science Technology

fā yǔyīn

fā ({send out} 发 發)
yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

While doing research for the MEotW post on “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)‐wàng (forget 忘)‐zì (character 字)”, I came across the web article “Why is character amnesia in China considered problematic?”. One of the points it makes involves this week’s MEotW, “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” (send voice message):

Another feature that has gained huge popularity in China recently is that of ‘sending voice messages’ (发语音, fā yǔyīn). Chinese Whatsapp equivalent ‘WeChat’ was the first in the world to introduce this feature in its app. Social media research by University College London has shown that Chinese WeChat users find voice messaging convenient because it eliminates the need to text. Informants have reported that sending written messages always takes more time, and that inputting Chinese characters was a struggle (Wang & McDonald, 2013). With voice messaging, or even with pinyin input, people do not need to memorize the exact order of each stroke of a character when typing a text. They can just rely on knowing the pronunciation and recognizing the character. The prevalence of typing and texting on cellular devices has been correlated to reduced active-character knowledge by Chinese natives, leading to the tibiwangzi-phenomenon (Williams, 2016).

Sending, Language, Sounds

The “fā ({send out}; issue; emit [→ [deliver | utter; express | become rich]] 发 發)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” literally means “send out; issue; emit”, and it can also be used to mean various things such as “deliver”, “utter; express”, and “become rich”. With such a variety of meanings, it shows up in various expressions, such as:

  • fāchū (fā·chū issue; send; emit · out 发出 發出)
  • fāchòu (fā·chòu emit · {being stinking} → [smell bad; stink] 发臭 發臭)
  • fāshēng (fā·shēng {issue forth} · {come to life} → [happen] 发生 發生)
  • fācái (fā·cái {issue forth} · wealth; riches → [get rich; make a fortune] 发财 發財) (“Fā ({issue forth (riches)} → [become rich] 发 發)” used on its own to mean “become rich” is probably an abbreviation of this expression.)
  • fāyīn (fā·yīn {sending out; issuing → [uttering] [of]} · sound → [pronouncing/articulating/enunciating | pronunciation; articulation; enunciation] 发音 發音)
  • etc.

The “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “language”. It can also particularly mean “speech”—according to a basic principle of linguistics, speech is the primary aspect of human language. This “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” is used in:

  • yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)
  • Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)
  • Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language [→ [(Modern Standard) Mandarin]] 汉语 漢語)
  • Hányǔ (Hán·yǔ Korean · Language 韩语 韓語)
  • Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)
  • etc.

(Note that while “Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)”, for example, refers to English language speech, “Yīngwén (Yīng·wén English · Writing 英文)” refers, not to English speech, but to English language writing.)

The “yīn (sound [→ [musical note/sound; tone; pronunciation | syllable | news; tidings]] 音)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “sound”, and it can also be used to mean “musical note/sound”, “tone”, “pronunciation”, “syllable”, and “news; tidings”. It is used in:

  • shēngyīn (shēng·yīn sound; voice · sound 声音 聲音)
  • yīnyuè (yīn·yuè {(musical) sound} · music → [music] 音乐 音樂)
  • Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)
  • Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn {Annotating of} · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音)
  • Mǎtài (Matthew 马太 馬太) Fúyīn (Fú·yīn Blessings · News 福音)
  • etc.

Speech is Natural, Characters, Not So Much

Writing is by now an age-old technology for recording and transmitting human speech. Now, in 2023, audio recording and transmitting technology has been available for a long time that actually allows one to directly hear the recorded speech pretty much as it originally sounded. Additionally, such technology is getting more and more common and accessible, to the point that many are finding that it often is faster and easier to send audio voice messages than to write and send written messages, especially when using as complex and cumbersome a writing system as Chinese characters.

True, in some situations, writing has some advantages over speech, but overall, the linguistic principle remains true that when it comes to human language, speech is primary and writing is secondary. Indeed, if God had meant for us humans to mainly use writing to communicate, then he could easily have designed our bodies with built-in screens that are able to dynamically display writing, like even humans know how to make. Instead, God designed our brains and bodies such that parts of them are specialized for directly understanding and producing speech.

Thus, it is quite natural that people would often take advantage of technology that has become available that allows one to actually hear recorded speech, instead of always settling for the visual abstractions of writing. And, when writing is appropriate, it is similarly relatively natural for people to make use of writing systems like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that are primarily phonetic, that is, focusing on directly representing the sounds of speech.

The National, the Political, the Universal(?), the Individual, the Rituals

On the other hand, rather than naturally reflecting divine wisdom, the attachment of many to Chinese characters instead reflects some human shortcomings. On a national level, the justification that characters are helpful in politically unifying China in spite of it being comprised of groups speaking different languages is yet another example of a human ruling authority prioritizing its own political power and survival over what’s actually good for the people. Besides, there’s actually nothing special about characters when it comes to being usable by people who speak different languages. As John DeFrancis put it in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, in the chapter entitled “The Universality Myth” (p. 159),

Chinese characters used by Asians speaking different languages are no more universal than are Latin letters used by Europeans who also speak different languages.

For example, while it’s true that the character “台” is recognized by both Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers as meaning “table”, it’s also true that “table”, written in Latin alphabet letters, is recognized by both English-speakers and French-speakers as meaning “table”.

(In China specifically, rather than characters, say, allowing Mandarin-speakers who don’t know Cantonese to understand written-out Cantonese speech, with its unique vocabulary and characters, and vice versa, what has actually happened is that the politically dominant Mandarin-speakers have basically forced speakers of Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. to learn and use written Mandarin instead of actual written Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc.)

On a more individual level, many who are attached to characters show that they cling to what is old and familiar, even if it is problematic, instead of reaching out for and embracing positive change and progress. Also, many who cling to characters and the intricate procedures required to handwrite them show that they prioritize traditions, rituals, and procedures over what really brings better results. As Jesus said, though, “wisdom is proved righteous by its works”, not by its traditions, rituals, and procedures.—Matthew 11:19.