Tag: Chinese Culture

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔzĂș

yǔzĂș (yǔ·zĂș language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} èŻ­æ— èȘžæ—) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

While “language family” seems to be a commonly accepted linguistic term, there does not seem to be universal consensus on what terms to use for subdivisions of language families. This is suggested by the wording used in the Wikipedia article on language families, under the subheading “Structure of a family”:

Language families can be divided into smaller phylogenetic units, conventionally referred to as branches of the family because the history of a language family is often represented as a tree diagram. A family is a monophyletic unit; all its members derive from a common ancestor, and all attested descendants of that ancestor are included in the family. 


Some taxonomists restrict the term family to a certain level, but there is little consensus in how to do so. Those who affix such labels also subdivide branches into groups, and groups into complexes.

So, it seems that one common—but not universal—language classification scheme is:

  • family > branch > group > complex


In contrast, noted 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. 749), sets out a slightly different language classification scheme:

  • family > group > branch > language > dialect

The Mandarin Word for “Language Group”

Regardless of whether we consider language families to be first subdivided into branches or into groups, an accepted and acceptable Mandarin translation for “language group” is this week’s MEotW, “yǔzĂș (yǔ·zĂș language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} èŻ­æ— èȘžæ—)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

If “zĂș (clan; race; tribe; {ethnic group}; nationality [→ [class or group of things or people with common characteristics]] 族)” seems familiar, perhaps that is because it occurs in some fairly well-known scriptures. For example, the 2019 Edition of the Mandarin New World Translation Bible translates “every nation and tribe and tongue and people” in Revelation 14:6 as “měi (every æŻ) ge ([mw] äžȘ 怋/缇/äžȘ) guĂłzĂș (guó·zĂș national · {ethnic group} → [nation] ć›œæ— ćœ‹æ—), bĂčzĂș (bĂč·zĂș sectional · {ethnic group} → [tribe] 郚族), yǔyĂĄn (yǔ·yĂĄn language · {(type of) speech} èŻ­èš€ èȘžèš€), hĂ© (and 撌) mĂ­nzĂș (mĂ­n·zĂș {(of) people} · {ethnic group} → [people] 民族)”.

The Mandarin Word for “Language Branch”

For reference, the Mandarin word for “language branch” is “yǔzhÄ« (yǔ·zhÄ« language · branch èŻ­æ”Ż èȘžæ”Ż)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

It’s interesting to note that according to Prof. 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”!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔxì

yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł») ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Last week’s 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 “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)”, this week’s MEotW.

The “yǔ (language; speech | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say èŻ­ èȘž)” in “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)” means “language”, particularly, the speech of a language, which modern linguists (language scientists) recognize to be the primary aspect of a language.

“XĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)”, as used in “yǔxĂŹ (yǔ·xĂŹ language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} èŻ­çł» èȘžçł»)”, literally means “tied [(things)]”, and effectively means “system”, “series”, or “family”. Note that in this usage, the character â€œçł»â€ is the same in both simplified and traditional forms. Looking up the character â€œçł»â€ in the dictionary can get tricky, because the simplified character â€œçł»â€ can correspond to the traditional characters â€œçł»â€, “係”, and also “çč«â€, 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] çź€äœ“ ç°Ąé«”) zĂŹ (characters 歗)”.

BTW, an interesting other usage of “xĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)” is in “YĂ­n HĂ© ((YĂ­n Silver 银 銀) (HĂ© River æČł) → [Milky Way]) XĂŹ ({Tied (Things)} → [System] → [Galaxy] çł»)”, in which “xĂŹ ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] çł»)” effectively means “galaxy”.

Pinwheel Galaxy

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

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 EncyclopĂŠdia 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 “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)”:

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 HawaiÊ»i 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

bĂĄihuĂ 

bĂĄihuĂ  (bĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As mentioned in last week’s MEotW on “chĂ©ngyǔ (chĂ©ng·yǔ {(sth. that) has become} · saying → [set phrase (typically of 4 characters); idiom] æˆèŻ­ 成èȘž)”, Literary Chinese was the standard style of writing in China for a long, long time. Since language naturally changes as time goes by, though, the way people actually talked became more and more different from Literary Chinese.

Eventually, starting about a century ago, in the early 1920s, written vernacular Chinese, or bĂĄihuĂ  (bĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話)—this week’s MEotW—began replacing Literary Chinese in literary works, and it eventually became the standard style of writing for Modern Standard Mandarin.

A Literary Turning Point

The Wikipedia article on written vernacular Chinese provides this summary regarding this literary turning point:

Jin Shengtan, who edited several novels in vernacular Chinese in the 17th century, is widely regarded as the pioneer of literature in the vernacular style. However, it was not until after the May Fourth Movement in 1919 and the promotion by scholars and intellectuals such as pragmatist reformer Hu Shih, pioneering writer Chen Hengzhe, leftist Lu Xun, Chen Duxiu, and leftist Qian Xuantong that vernacular Chinese, or Bai hua, gained widespread importance. In particular, The True Story of Ah Q by Lu Xun is generally accepted as the first modern work to fully utilize the vernacular language.[source]

The Wikipedia article on the May Fourth Movement adds the following:

In Chinese literature, the May Fourth Movement is regarded as the watershed after which the use of the vernacular language (baihua) gained currency over and eventually replaced the use of Literary Chinese in literary works. Intellectuals were driven toward expressing themselves using the spoken tongue under the slogan æˆ‘æ‰‹ć†™æˆ‘ćŁ [wǒ (my 我) shǒu (hand 手) xiě (writes 憙 毫) wǒ (my 我) kǒu ({mouth(’s utterances)} 揣)] (‘my hand writes [what] my mouth [speaks]’), although the change was actually gradual: Hu Shih had already argued for the use of the modern vernacular language in literature in his 1917 essay “Preliminary discussion on literary reform” (æ–‡ć­Šæ”čè‰Żćˆèźź), while the first short story written exclusively in the vernacular language, The True Story of Ah Q by Lu Xun, was not published until 1921.

Punctuation! Arabic Numerals!

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on written vernacular Chinese, quoted above, goes on to make the following claim about what came along with this change to the vernacular style:

Along with the growing popularity of vernacular writing in books in this period was the acceptance of punctuation, modeled after that used in Western languages (traditional Chinese literature was almost entirely unpunctuated), and the use of Arabic numerals.

The above claim about how it came to be that we now benefit from punctuation in modern Chinese writings is repeated in the separate Wikipedia article on Chinese punctuation:

Although there was a long native tradition of textual annotation to indicate the boundaries of sentences and clauses, the concept of punctuation marks being a mandatory and integral part of the text was only adapted in the written language during the 20th century due to Western influence.

A quick web search also turned up this post on the Chinese Language Stack Exchange website, part of which says:

I have seen some old Chinese books. The words flowed from top to bottom on the page and there was no punctuation.

We can be thankful that bĂĄihuĂ  (bĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話) (along with, apparently, punctuation and Arabic numerals) replaced Literary Chinese as the standard style of writing for Mandarin, just as I’m sure that the English-speakers among us are thankful that the standard written English of today is no longer the written English of Shakespeare or that of the King James Version of the Bible.

How About Cantonese, Shanghainese, Etc.?

BĂĄihuĂ  (BĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話) not only became the standard style of writing for Modern Standard Mandarin, but due to China’s particular language and political situation, it also became the standard style of writing for speakers of Cantonese and of other Chinese languages, as Wikipedia points out:

Since the early 1920s, this modern vernacular form has been the standard style of writing for speakers of all varieties of Chinese throughout mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore

As someone who was in the Cantonese field for a long time before joining the Mandarin field, I can attest to the fact that years ago in the Cantonese field, we would use official publications that were actually in written Mandarin, with its different vocabulary, etc., because bĂĄihuĂ  (bĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話), the standard writing style in the Chinese world, is based on Mandarin.

Recently, though, Jehovah’s organization has carried on in the direction gone in by bĂĄihuĂ  (bĂĄi·huĂ  {white → [colloquial; vernacular]} · speech [→ [writing based on vernacular speech]] ç™œèŻ 癜話), of having writing reflect how people actually talk, by making available publications in which the writing is based on spoken Cantonese, in addition to the existing publications using written Mandarin. (Publications in which the writing is based on other spoken Chinese languages are also available.) This is in harmony with a basic principle regarding how God designed and created humans to use language, which, as linguists have figured out, is that speech is primary and writing is secondary.

Different kinds of written Chinese on jw.org

Publications are available on jw.org in writing based on different Chinese languages, to better match how people actually talk in those languages.