Tag: Cantonese

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng

jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)]) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[I’m still unusually busy with preparing musical notation + Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) songbook material for this year’s Mandarin conventions, and now, also with rolling out the next generation Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)+ format. (See this Links News post for more information on that.) So, here’s a repost of a post from a few years back, on a subject of basic importance to Mandarin field language learners.]

[Yes, this expression comes from Cantonese, but the above Mandarin version does appear in Mandarin dictionaries, so it qualifies as a Mandarin expression!]

Recently, while out to dinner with one of the first families to serve in the local Cantonese congregation, along with the circuit overseer serving the local Chinese circuit and his wife, the subject came up of how Mandarin and Cantonese are actually different languages, not just dialects of the same language.

Chickens Talking with Ducks

The wife of the circuit overseer asked what the difference is between a language and a dialect. So, I proceeded to explain something that is emphasized by American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair, that a primary way accepted by most linguists to distinguish a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility, as is discussed in this excerpt from the MEotW post on “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

It has been said that “a language is a dialect with an army and navy”, but in his article Professor Mair gives us a more linguistically correct and useful way to distinguish between a language and a dialect:

Regardless of the imprecision of lay usage, we should strive for a consistent means of distinguishing between language and dialect. Otherwise we might as well use the two terms interchangeably. That way lies chaos and the collapse of rational discourse. Mutual intelligibility [emphasis added] is normally accepted by most linguists as the only plausible criterion for making the distinction between language and dialect in the vast majority of cases. Put differently, no more suitable, workable device for distinguishing these two levels of speech has yet been proposed. If there are to be exceptions to the useful principle of mutual intelligibility, there should be compelling reasons for them. Above all, exceptions should not be made the rule.

What is mutual intelligibility? Simply put, in linguistics, two or more speech varieties are said to be mutually intelligible if they are “able to be understood by one another’s speakers”. For example, if one person only knows English, and another person only knows Spanish, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—English and Spanish are not mutually intelligible, and are suitably recognized as being different languages, not just different dialects of “European”.

Similarly, if one person only knows Mandarin, and another person only knows Cantonese, they can’t really understand each other if they try to talk to each other—Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible. So, while they may be “fāngyán+ (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} 方言)”, linguistically, Mandarin and Cantonese should really be considered to be different languages, not just different dialects of “Chinese”.

Indeed, I have heard people use this week’s MEotW, “jī‐tóng‐yā‐jiǎng+ ((jī chicken 鸡 雞/鷄)‐(tóng {together with} 同 同/仝)‐(yā duck 鸭 鴨)‐(jiǎng speaking 讲 講) → [people not understanding each other because of speaking different languages (from Cantonese)])”, to specifically describe Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers trying to talk to each other, and not understanding each other. 🐓 🦆

After I explained the gist of the above, one of the daughters of the family at the dinner—who had been labouring for decades under the misconception that Mandarin and Cantonese are just dialects and that someone who knows one can easily learn the other—said, “Now I don’t feel like an idiot.”

Uncommon Knowledge?

It could be said that ones such as this family and this circuit overseer and his wife, who have all worked so hard and served for so long in the Chinese language fields, should already have known such a basic thing about the Chinese languages. However, the following things are unfortunately true:

  • Even publishers who are learning a language to serve in that language’s field generally consider such linguistic (language science) knowledge to be specialized technical knowledge that is beyond what they need to learn, and possibly beyond what they could even comprehend.
  • Western-educated publishers learning a Chinese language may unwittingly go along with the Western worldly tendency to exoticize things related to China. (John DeFrancis, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (p. 37), calls this “Exotic East Syndrome”.) They may be content with—or even enjoy—the alluring veil of mystery and mystique surrounding certain things related to China and Chinese culture. Thus, they don’t seek to learn about and understand deeper truths about such things, that may pierce through this obscuring veil, and burst this bubble.—Compare 2 Corinthians 3:14, including the margin note.
  • The central ruling authorities of China have long actively promoted the scientifically incorrect idea that the different varieties of speech in China are just dialects of the one Chinese language. This idea is political propaganda supporting the idea that it’s good for there to be central ruling authorities in China.
  • Traditional worldly Chinese language instructors and others who are knowledgeable about Chinese languages and Chinese characters are eager to promote and perpetuate the traditional thinking about Chinese languages and characters, that they have invested so much time and effort in, and that they are so proud of.
  • Chinese-educated publishers who are already steeped in the traditional ideas about Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., and who are thus lauded and deferred to as experts by other publishers, may be eager to simply unquestioningly pass on the cultural knowledge and ideas that they were taught, and that they are lauded and respected for.
  • With so much misinformation “in the air”, including from trusted authority figures, “everyone knows” that there is one Chinese language, with dialects that include Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. Since “everyone knows” this, it’s easy to just go along with it, especially in an Eastern culture like the Chinese culture that emphasizes conforming to the group. As Eastern cultures, Japanese, Korean, etc. cultures are similar in this respect, so publishers from those cultural backgrounds may also generally tend to just go along with what “everyone knows” about there being just one Chinese language that has various dialects.—Ephesians 2:2.
  • The Bible makes it clear that Satan the Devil is “a liar and the father of the lie”. It also describes him as “the great dragon…who is misleading the entire inhabited earth”. So, while we can only speculate about the details of what strings are purposely pulled in the spirit realm by Satan and his demons as opposed to what human folly they simply passively observe, we can be sure that Satan is delighted with all the ways in which people are misled in and about the Chinese culture, in which the dragon is considered a positive, revered symbol.—John 8:44; Revelation 12:9.

So, for reasons such as the above, even the basic linguistic truth that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. actually function as different languages is unfortunately not yet common knowledge among those serving in the Chinese fields. As the saying goes, which some say is a Chinese proverb, “error will travel over half the globe, while truth is pulling on her boots”.

Jesus said, though, that true worshippers worship “with spirit and truth”, and that “the truth will set you free”. With regard to Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc., the truth about them can even set one free from unnecessarily feeling like an “idiot”, as the sister mentioned above so eloquently put it, because of labouring under all the political propaganda, traditions, and other kinds of misinformation and wrong thinking that unfortunately surround Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Huge Worldwide Effects

In addition to being hugely freeing for individual language learners, spreading the truth about the Chinese languages, Chinese characters, etc. is also important on a larger scale, since the worldwide Mandarin field, for one, is the largest language field in the world, and probably the largest language field that has ever existed in human history. For comparison, according to Ethnologue, a resource on world languages, the worldwide Mandarin field (those worldwide whose mother tongue is Mandarin) is about twice the size of the second largest worldwide language field, the Spanish field, and it’s about two and a half times the size of the third largest worldwide language field, the English field. Allowing various untruths to continue to divert and bog down the language-learning efforts of those who come to help in the worldwide Mandarin field can have incalculable overall negative effects on the preaching work in this enormous field.

Chart: Languages by First-Language Speakers—2019

So, even as we hang on to Bible truth, let us also hang on to the linguistic truths that we learn, and let us do what we can to share them with our fellow workers in the vast worldwide Chinese fields.

Categories
Culture Language Learning Science

gòngtōng

gòngtōng+ (gòng·tōng shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]] 共通) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As part of a series of posts about some common myths about Chinese characters, this post discusses the Universality Myth. So, this week’s MEotW is “gòngtōng (gòng·tōng shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]] 共通)”, an expression that seems to express well the supposed universality that is the subject of this myth.

In “gòngtōng (gòng·tōng shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]] 共通)”, “gòng (share | common | together | altogether 共)” means “share | common | together | altogether”. This morpheme also appears in other well-known expressions such as “gòngtóng+ (gòng·tóng shared · {same | together} 共同)”, “gònghé‐guó ((gòng·hé shared · harmony → [republic] 共和)‐(guó country; nation; state 国 國) → [republic])”, and “Gòngchǎn+ (Gòng·chǎn {Commonly Possessing} · {Produced (Things) → [Property]} → [Communist] 共产 共產)‐Dǎng (Party 党 黨/党)”.

As for “tōng ({[(going)] through[(out)]; open [to]} [→ [common; general | connecting/communicating [to/with] [→ [logical; coherent]]]] 通)”, it here literally means “through”, and effectively means “connecting” or “in common”. It also appears in well-known expressions such as “gōutōng+ (gōu·tōng {(through) channel} · {(going) through → [communicating]} → [communicating; communication | linking up] 沟通 溝通)”, “jiāotōng+ (jiāo·tōng crossing; intersecting; meeting; joining · {(going) through → [connecting; communicating]} → [traffic; communications; transportation] 交通)”, “pǔtōng (pǔ·tōng common; general; universal; widespread · {through(out) → [general; common]} → [ordinary; common; average; general] 普通)”, and “tōngguò (tōng·guò through · passing → [passing through] → [through] 通过 通過)”.

When put together, the morphemes in “gòngtōng (gòng·tōng shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]] 共通)” can effectively mean “shared; common; universal”, which in itself can generally be good. In fact, in our ministry, we look for “gòngtōng (gòng·tōng shared · {through → [in common]} → [common] 共通) diǎn (points 点 點)” (common ground) with those with whom we speak. How universal, though, are Chinese characters? Are they really more universal than, say, alphabets?

Basis and Beliefs

In the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, linguist and sinologist John DeFrancis writes the following in the chapter entitled “The Universality Myth”:

The Universality Myth is the logical extension of the Ideographic Myth. It is based on the threefold belief that:

1. Chinese characters enable a speaker from Beijing and another from Canton to communicate in writing even though they cannot understand each other’s speech. …
2. Chinese characters make it possible to read today’s newspapers as well as poems written a thousand years ago and philosophical essays written long before Christ. …
3. Chinese characters can function as a universal means of communication among people speaking totally unrelated languages. …

…

Implicitly or explicitly, the statements are meant to contrast Chinese characters with the familiar alphabetic scripts of the West. Chinese characters, it is believed, can do all these things, whereas alphabetic scripts cannot.

In other words, the Universality Myth regarding Chinese characters is that these visible, supposedly ideographic (representing meaning visually, without dependence on speech sounds) symbols of worldly Chinese culture can function across barriers of space, time, and language as universal enablers of communication. That seems amazing, if true. But, is it true? And, is it any more true for Chinese characters than it is for alphabets?

Testing the Relative Universality

DeFrancis goes on to test the Universality Myth by examining what it would take for an illiterate Mandarin speaker and an illiterate Cantonese speaker to learn how to communicate with each other by writing in characters, compared to what it would take for an illiterate French speaker and an illiterate Spanish speaker to learn how to communicate with each other by writing in French (which, as is widely known, is written using the Latin alphabet):

My Chinese colleagues estimate on the basis of their own experience and direct contact with the Chinese educational system that it takes seven to eight years for a Mandarin speaker to learn how to read and write three thousand characters and another year or two for a speaker of Cantonese to reach the same level in Standard Chinese. …My colleagues in French and Spanish estimate it would take the two imagined European illiterates less than half the time to reach a comparable level of proficiency in French.

…The overall picture is clear. It seems incontestable that both Europeans will find it easier to learn to read and write French than it be for either Cantonese or Mandarin speakers to learn to read and write Chinese. If we could add up the combined number of hours needed for the two members of each group to accomplish the same thing, the total would be enormously greater in the case of Chinese written in characters than in the case of French written in an alphabetic script. Even more significant, it would also be enormously greater for Chinese written in characters than for Chinese written in Pinyin. That is to say, it would be much easier for illiterates from Peking and those from Canton, even if the latter remain incapable of speaking Mandarin, to acquire the ability to communicate with each other by learning to read and write Standard Chinese written in Pinyin rather than in characters. Where, then, is the vaunted marvel of tongue-tied Chinese o’er-leaping barriers in speech by communicating with each other by means of those magical Chinese characters?

So, it’s possible for speakers of Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, English, French, Spanish, etc. to learn Chinese characters and use these as a means of communication. However, they could also do this with Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)! Also, it would actually be much faster and easier to do this with Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) than it would be to do it with the crazy complex characters!

Going Back in Time

What about the claim that characters allow us to still be able to read Chinese writings from long ago? Concerning this, DeFrancis writes:

Apart from learning the characters in their current meanings, Chinese must also learn the frequently different meanings of characters in earlier usage and the definitely different syntactical structures of classical versus contemporary written Chinese. This ability involves considerable training in tasks notorious for their difficulty—tasks that involve mastering differences at least as great as those between current English and the language of Chaucer. Without going into great detail, it should be readily apparent that an illiterate Chinese, regardless of whether he speaks Cantonese or Mandarin, will have a much greater task in learning to read classical Chinese than will an illiterate European, regardless of whether he speaks Spanish or French, in learning to read Latin. In the case of those already literate in current Chinese or French, it is doubtful that Chinese readers would enjoy any advantage over Europeans in respect to the amount of additional effort required to read classical Chinese in contrast to Latin.

So, it would probably be harder for a Chinese person to learn characters and then learn classical Chinese, than it would be for a European person to learn the Latin alphabet, and then learn Latin!

For us Mandarin field language learners specifically, since Jehovah’s organization is continually moving forward with ever broader, deeper, and clearer understandings of various truths, we in contrast seek to use the newest, most up-to-date writings from the organization whenever possible. Even with regard to the Bible itself, first written long ago, we seek, as a rule, to use the most up-to-date translations available. For specific examples in this regard, Appendix A2 (English, Mandarin) of the New World Translation Bible lists ways in which the current version of this Bible has been carefully revised to be more beneficial for modern readers.

It’s worth noting that the Chinese versions of the organization’s publications used to be written only in Chinese characters, but the most recent versions of the organization’s important writings generally have Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) available for them as well now.

Sunk Costs and Future Investments

Of course, those who have already spent years of hard work learning characters wouldn’t have to start that particular long and difficult process from zero (although, 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) (character amnesia) is real thing that takes constant ongoing effort to ward off). And, if they happen to meet others, even others who don’t speak the same language, who have also already spent years of hard work learning characters, then, yes, they might be able to use characters to imperfectly communicate with these others, to a limited extent—that is indeed one imperfect benefit arising from the massive sunk costs they have incurred in the process of learning characters.

However, those who have not already poured enormous amounts of time and effort into learning characters still have the opportunity to objectively weigh how much time and effort it is reasonable and worthwhile to sink into the characters going forward. As they consider this, they can keep in mind the inescapable reality that, due to the inherent extraordinary complexity of the characters, and due to the way that Jehovah actually designed us humans to use language, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and other sound-prioritizing writing systems (like Hangul, for those learning Korean) offer much greater ROI (return on investment) than characters do for those considering investing time and effort into learning how to actually communicate with others. Dedicated servants of Jehovah should also keep in mind that the time and energy they have are not theirs alone to spend or waste—their time, energy, etc. actually belong to Jehovah, and should thus be used and invested accordingly.

Anyway, to summarize, the Universality Myth regarding Chinese characters is…BUSTED!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

Zhōngwén

Zhōngwén+ (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on October 26, 2020. It’s about something that is fundamentally important for Mandarin field language learners to understand correctly.]

As discussed in a previous MEotW, the expression “Zhōngguó+ (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” is commonly used to refer to China, since historically, China views itself as the centre of the world, so much so, in fact, that it is the only nation to name itself as such. We can see then that Mandarin expressions starting with “Zhōng (Central → [Chinese] 中)-” can refer to things related to China.

In that case then, are “Zhōnghuà (Zhōng·huà {Central → [Chinese]} · Speech 中话 中話)” or “Zhōngyǔ (Zhōng·yǔ {Central → [Chinese]} · Language 中语 中語)” used to refer to any Chinese language, similarly to how “pǔtōnghuà (pǔ·tōng·huà common; universal · {through(out) → [common]} · speech → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in China)] 普通话 普通話)” and “Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)” are used to refer to Mandarin? Apparently not, according to my dictionaries.

Instead, Chinese people commonly use “Zhōngwén+ (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”—this week’s MEotW—to mean “Chinese language”. It should be noted, though, that although “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)” is often used to refer to Chinese speech (e.g., in “shuō (speak 说 說/説) Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)” (“speak Chinese”)), “wén (writing; script [→ [language | culture]] 文)” really means “writing”.

Why do so many Chinese people thus conflate writing with speech and language, when they, while related, are really distinctly different things? This seems to be a symptom of the deeply ingrained Chinese cultural conceit that the Chinese characters are the primary aspect of the Chinese languages—to many Chinese people, the characters are the language. This is contrary to the principle recognized by modern linguists (language scientists) that speech is the primary aspect of any language, not writing. The truth of this basic linguistic principle is shown by the fact that many languages don’t even have a writing system, showing that the required foundation of a language is its speech, not its writing.

Our Creator himself touches on this matter in his Word the Bible:

8 For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me.—1 Corinthians 14:8–11.

Yes, Jehovah God himself, the One who designed us with our ability to use language, emphasizes the primary importance of understandable speech when it comes to communicating with people, especially when communicating about the potentially life-saving good news of the Kingdom.

Chinese people, however, often have the mistaken view, based on nothing more than deeply ingrained human tradition and not a little cultural pride, that their characters writing system is the primary aspect of the Chinese languages. So, we must take that into consideration when they or people deferring to them erroneously tell us, with all sincerity, that we need to focus first on Chinese characters in our efforts to learn one or more of the Chinese languages. The truth, as testified to by both real language experts among humans and by the Creator himself, is that speech—both understanding speech and speaking understandably—should be our primary focus as Chinese field language-learners.

Regarding the expression “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, another thing I have noticed is that when Mandarin-speakers say “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)”, they mean Mandarin speech, but when Cantonese-speakers say “Zhōngwén (Zhōng·wén {Central → [Chinese]} · Writing 中文)” in Cantonese, they mean Cantonese speech. As a Chinese person, I must reluctantly admit that with such habits, and with naming their nation “Zhōngguó+ (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)”, the central nation of the world, many Chinese people have taken quite far the tendency of imperfect humans to consider themselves the centre of the universe!