Categories
Culture History

chéngyǔ

chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Years ago, “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” was an Expression of the Week on the tiandi.info blog. That post from the early days of tiandi.info started by discussing the English word “idiom”, and then presented the Mandarin word “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” as “the Chinese word for ‘idiom’ ”.

However, after further research, it appears, as is often the case with English and Mandarin words, that the English word “idiom” and the Mandarin word “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)”, which are often considered to be equivalent, are only mostly equivalent.

The online dictionary Wiktionary gives us this definition of “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)”:

a certain kind of Chinese set phrase originating in Classical Chinese, typically four or five characters in length

Also, Wikipedia provides the following summarized information:

Chéngyǔ are considered the collected wisdom of the Chinese culture, and contain the experiences, moral concepts, and admonishments from previous generations of Chinese.

They are often referred to as Chinese idioms or four-character idioms; however, they are not the only idioms in Chinese.

Chéngyǔ are mostly derived from ancient literature, including the pre-Qin classics, poetry from all periods of Chinese history, and late imperial vernacular novels and short stories. A small number were constructed in the 19th and early 20th centuries from Western source materials.

A quick check of Pleco does indeed turn up several other Mandarin words besides “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語)” that also correspond to the English word “idiom”.

So, it appears that while chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) can be called idioms in English, not all Chinese idioms are chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語). It seems that “chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語)” specifically refers to Chinese idioms that originated in Classical Chinese, or Literary Chinese. This writing style has largely been replaced by written vernacular Chinese, which has been the standard style of writing for Modern Standard Mandarin for about a century now.

Since they originated in Classical Chinese, which hasn’t been current for about a century, chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) often cannot be fully understood by modern speakers and readers of Mandarin, since knowledge about the source material for chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) has naturally been fading with the passing of time.

Wikipedia offers up this example:

Chéngyǔ are generally meant to convey the message or moral of the myth, story or historical event from which they were derived. Thus, even after translation into modern words and syntax, chéngyǔ in isolation are often unintelligible without additional explanation. …

The phrase “破釜沉舟” (pò fǔ chén zhōu, lit: “break the pots and sink the ships”) is based on a historical account where the general Xiang Yu ordered his troops to destroy all cooking utensils and boats after crossing a river into the enemy’s territory. He won the battle because of this “no-retreat” strategy. Thus, the idiom is used as a verb phrase with the meaning “to make an all-out effort to achieve success by the deliberate removal of recourse or backup.” Similar phrases are known in the West, such as “Point of no return” or “Crossing the Rubicon”.

“Darmok”

Researching this post on chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) made me think of the episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled “Darmok”. In this episode, the crew of the Federation starship Enterprise encounters an alien species called the Tamarians. This species speaks using phrases like “Temba, his arms wide”, which even the show’s fictional universal translator cannot fully decipher for the befuddled Federation crew.

While some consider this to be one of the greatest episodes of Star Trek, as someone who has been trained to communicate a life-saving message as clearly and understandably as possible, I have always found the alien way of speaking in this episode to be incredibly stupid, counter-productive, and even dangerous. How obviously foolish it is when speaking to require your audience to have cultural or other knowledge that they probably don’t have, resulting in failure to communicate!

In “Darmok” (spoilers), the Enterprise and the alien ship ended up actually shooting at each other, and the alien captain ended up dying because he and the Enterprise’s Captain Picard had such difficulties coming to understand each other. In such a scenario, there is great risk and danger, and no guarantee that mutual understanding will eventually be achieved, even between ones as intelligent and well-motivated as the crew of the Enterprise and the crew of this alien ship were. How much better it is to speak simply and understandably from the beginning!—1 Co. 14:8–11.

In Today’s Mandarin Field

One highly educated Mandarin-speaking brother I know was admonished by his daughter to tone down his extensive use of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in his talks, because while they may be very cool to those who have the background knowledge to get them, many listeners actually cannot understand them. Although generally a genial and pleasant fellow, this scholarly brother’s irritated reply was to the effect of, “This is a Chinese congregation, people should learn the language!”

Understandably, when one knows a lot about something, the tendency and the temptation is to use that knowledge, even when it may not be appropriate for our purpose or our audience. So, it would be good for those of us serving in the Mandarin field to remember that we should be using our language skills to speak understandably about “the magnificent things of God”, not to showcase the cultural traditions and knowledge of mere humans.—Acts 2:8–11.

As noted above, even among the humans in the Chinese world, knowledge of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) seems to be fading away. As time goes by, and as the experience of modern life inevitably continues to change, knowledge of chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) seems to be gradually becoming something that only belongs to the relative few who have a particular interest in these pithy distillations of traditional experience. This is perhaps similar to how in the English-speaking world, it’s probably true that by now only relatively few particularly interested ones can fully understand references (e.g., “Et tu, Brute?”) based on the plots of Shakespeare’s plays. Now, rather than coming up with new chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語), when Chinese people in general get creative with the language, it’s typically while they are chatting on the Internet.

One useful barometer to check regarding how much we should learn and use chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in today’s Mandarin field is to consider how much they are used in today’s official publications of Jehovah’s organization. Comparing Mandarin publications from years ago to those of today, it can be seen that the trend is to use ever simpler and clearer language, as is the trend with English publications. Thus, chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) are being used less and less in Mandarin publications as time goes by. Following this example, we thus should also be using fewer and fewer chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(things that) have become} · sayings → [set phrases (typically of 4 characters); idioms] 成语 成語) in the Mandarin field as time goes by.

If and when we do use a chéngyǔ (chéng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] 成语 成語), we should make sure that we explain it well enough so that even those who had never heard of it or its backstory can understand and benefit from it.

Categories
Culture History

wénhuà

wénhuà (wén·huà {(with) writing} · transformed (system) → [culture] | {(with) writing} · transformed → [cultural] 文化) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Ironically, even though many people obsess over preserving “authentic” traditional Chinese culture, the very Chinese word for “culture” actually came from a Japanese word, which was coined to translate the Western concept of culture:

Before the word wénhuà 文化, meaning “culture,” was imported from Japan to China, there was already a concept of wénhuà 文化. It is as old as the word Zhōngguó 中国. Four words are concealed behind 文化, namely 文 wén (civil); 治 zhì (administration); 教 jiào (to educate); and 化 huà (to persuade). 文 wén is an abbreviation of 文治 wén zhì (civil administration); 化 huà is an abbreviation of 教化 jiào huà (to persuade through education). Thus 文化 is a short way of writing “civil administration and persuasion through
education.” This refers to the peaceful, Confucian-based moral education of the people (cf. Gernet, Jacques 1983:85, 295).

The current word “culture,” which is also written 文化, has a different origin. To translate the Western concept of culture, the Japanese coined the word bunka, which is written 文化 (see Liu, Zhengtan et al. 1984, s.v. wenhua). The Chinese imported this character combination from Japan and pronounced it according to the rules of their own language: wénhuà. In this way, the modern term has been superimposed on the Chinese “civil administration and persuasion through education.” The original Chinese meaning is largely unknown nowadays.

“Two Steps Toward Digraphia in China”, by Xieyan Hincha

So, let us not fall into the common snare of idolizing any worldly human culture, including traditional Chinese culture. As with any human culture that has had contact with other human cultures, there has been mutual borrowing/stealing of ideas, mutual influencing, etc. Also, as with any merely human culture, there is some bad along with the good. There is so much bad in every worldly human culture, in fact, that Jehovah will not deem any worldly human culture to be worthy of preserving forever, no matter how ancient and seemingly exotic it is. Indeed, “the world”—and all the human cultures in it—“is passing away”.—1 John 2:17.

For a certainty, we should never let human cultural traditions take priority over serving Jehovah in the best way we can. As in all other things, we should imitate Jesus in positively hating any human traditions that make it unnecessarily burdensome for people to serve God.—Mark 7:1–13.

Rather than putting any mere human culture on a pedastal and taking pride in learning from it, we should primarily take pride in being “taught by Jehovah” himself about ways of thinking, feeling, expressing, and doing things, which are what make up culture.—Isaiah 54:13; 1 Corinthians 1:31.

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Languages Science

fāngyán

fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The term “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” has been used in the Chinese-speaking world in various ways, but the literal meanings of the words that make it up indicate that it refers to the speech pattern of a place, even a place as small as a village. For reference, the “fāng (direction [→ [side; party | place; region | method; way [→ [prescription; recipe]] | power (math.)]] | {[is] square} [→ [[is] upright; honest]] | [mw for square things] 方)” in “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” is the “fāng (direction [→ [side; party | place; region | method; way [→ [prescription; recipe]] | power (math.)]] | {[is] square} [→ [[is] upright; honest]] | [mw for square things] 方)” in “dìfang (dì·fang {(section of) earth → [place]} · {direction → [place]} → [place] 地方)”, and the “yán (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 言)” in “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” is the “yán (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 言)” in “yǔyán (yǔ·yán language · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)”.

Fāngyán (Fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” has customarily been translated into English as “dialect”, but this practice can be misleading and confusing, because while “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)” and “dialect” can sometimes both be applied to a particular speech pattern, the two terms don’t mean exactly the same thing.

What is a Chinese “Dialect”?

American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair wrote an extensive article on this subject, “What Is a Chinese ‘Dialect/Topolect’? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic Terms”, which can be found here (PDF) and here (web page) on his website Sino-Platonic Papers.

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”.

If many of the varieties of speech in China are really different languages, as linguists would refer to them, why have so many people come to think that they are just dialects of a single Chinese language? 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—so they have promoted this idea. In other words, it’s basically political propaganda!

Being Clear on What’s What

Why is it especially important for language-learners in a language field like the Mandarin field to recognize, in spite of the commonly accepted political propaganda, that Chinese varieties of speech like Mandarin and Cantonese really function like different languages, and not different dialects of the same language? Well, as someone who along with many others has come to the Mandarin field from the Cantonese field, I have had the dubious pleasure of observing how some have tried to speak Mandarin by just taking the Cantonese they knew and twisting it a little, since they were relying on the conventional wisdom that Mandarin and Cantonese are just different dialects of the same language. As well-meaning as they may have been, the results were often just as bad as when someone sings badly off-key, or as Star Trek fans may say, they often sounded like the language equivalent of a transporter accident 🙀. Even after decades in the Mandarin field, some publishers who had come over from the Cantonese field still say some Mandarin words with Cantonese-y pronunciations.

In contrast, when one recognizes, for example, that Cantonese is Cantonese and Mandarin is Mandarin, and that neither one is just a slightly mutated version of the other, then that paves the way for language-learning progress that is free of being distorted by untruthful and misleading beliefs. Yes, by recognizing and accepting a variety of speech for what it really is, we can go on to freely learn to speak it well and properly, so that we can be as effective as possible at helping people whose mother tongue is that variety of speech.

As with everything else in life, in language-learning too, the truth matters. As Jehovah’s people, we especially want to “worship the Father with spirit and truth”, and when we seek to do so as we learn a language to use it in Jehovah’s service, we will find that ‘the truth will set us free’ from the distortions and burdens of untruthful and misleading beliefs.—John 4:23; 8:32.

Some Official Recognition

The organization has recently demonstrated that it recognizes the truth about how different many of the Chinese varieties of speech are from one another. For example, whereas before there was one Chinese edition of each publication (using Mandarin wording), now, some publications are available in different Chinese editions for different Chinese languages (including Cantonese), each with different wording.

List of different Chinese languages in which publications are available on jw.org
jw.org now has publications in different Chinese languages.

To help reduce the confusion around the inappropriate use of the English word “dialect” to translate “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”, Professor Mair proposed that the word “topolect” (topo- (“place”) +‎ -lect (“[language] variety”)) be used instead as an exact, neutral English translation of “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”. While not as well-known as “dialect”, the word “topolect” has gained a certain amount of recognition, and it can now be found in several dictionaries, e.g., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Wordnik, and Wiktionary.