Tag: Chinese Culture

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.

Categories
Culture History Names Nations

Zhōngguó

Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China | Chinese] 中国 中國) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

“Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” is commonly translated into English as “Middle Kingdom”, which may suggest something in the middle, or middling, average, unremarkable. However, considering the history of the usage of the expression “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)”, and considering how the people of China have historically viewed their nation, it would be more correct to translate “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” as “Central Nation”, the nation that’s at the centre, the heart, of the world that matters to them.

According to Wikipedia’s summarizations, the earliest known appearance of the expression “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國)” was on the Hé Zūn[source][source], an ancient Chinese ritual bronze vessel dating from the era of early Western Zhou (1046–771 BCE).[source]

The earliest known appearance of Zhongguo (中國), inscribed on the Western Zhou bronze vessel He zun

Here are some quotes from that Wikipedia article, with links to information about sources:

The phrase "zhong guo" came into common usage in the Warring States period, when it referred to the "Central States"; the states of the Yellow River Valley of the Zhou era, as distinguished from the tribal periphery.[source]

There were different usages of the term "Zhongguo" in every period.

With the overthrow of the Qing in 1911, most Chinese dropped Shina as foreign and demanded that even Japanese replace it with Zhonghua minguo or simply Zhongguo.[source] [The reformer] Liang went on to argue that the concept of tianxia [Wikipedia article] had to be abandoned in favor of guojia, that is, "nation," for which he accepted the term Zhongguo.[source] After the founding of the Chinese Republic in 1912, Zhongguo was also adopted as the abbreviation of Zhonghua minguo.[source]

The English translation of "Zhongguo" as the "Middle Kingdom" entered European languages through the Portuguese in the 16th century and became popular in the mid 19th century. By the mid 20th century the term was thoroughly entrenched in the English language to reflect the Western view of China as the inwards looking Middle Kingdom, or more accurately the Central Kingdom. [Writer] Endymion Wilkinson points out that the Chinese were not unique in thinking of their country as central, although China was the only culture to use the concept for their name.[source]

In summary, while the exact meaning and borders of Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國) have varied thoughout China’s history, overall, the people of China have long viewed their nation as central to the world that they knew, or cared most about, to the point that “China was the only culture to use the concept for their name”.

The people of China considering their nation to be the centre of the world has historically been such a thing that there are several concepts related to this. E.g.:

  • Sinocentrism

    • The geographical dimension of traditional Sinocentrism was highlighted by Chinese reactions to the publication of the first world map by the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610):

      • …Lately Matteo Ricci utilized some false teachings to fool people, and scholars unanimously believed him...take for example the position of China on the map. He puts it not in the center but slightly to the West and inclined to the north. This is altogether far from the truth, for China should be in the center of the world, which we can prove by the single fact that we can see the North Star resting at the zenith of the heaven at midnight. How can China be treated like a small unimportant country, and placed slightly to the north as in this map?[source]

    • Culturally, one of the most famous attacks on Sinocentrism and its associated beliefs was made by the author Lu Xun in The True Story of Ah Q, in which the protagonist is humiliated and defeated; satirizing the ridiculous way in which he claimed "spiritual victories" in spite of this.[source]

      • [Lǔ Xùn is generally regarded as the greatest Chinese writer of the twentieth century. Interestingly, he was a strong proponent of replacing the Chinese characters writing system with an alphabetic system. (A modern example of such a system for Mandarin is Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).) He felt so strongly about this that he was reported to have said, “Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · characters 汉字 漢字) bú (not 不) miè ({are extinguished} 灭 滅), Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China] 中国 中國) bì (certainly 必) wáng ({will flee} → [will die] 亡).” (“If Chinese characters are not abolished, China will certainly die.”). The text in Chinese characters of something he wrote on this subject can be found here, and an English translation of it can be found here.
        • Some wonder why China has held on to its archaic characters writing system instead of moving on to using a modern alphabetic writing system like almost every other nation does, even though outstanding native sons like Lǔ Xùn ((Lǔ Stupid; Rash (surname) 鲁 魯) (Xùn Fast; Quick; Swift 迅) (pen name of Zhōu Shùrén, the greatest Chinese writer of the 20th cent. and a strong advocate of alphabetic writing)) have advocated strongly for that. Perhaps the proud self-centredness of the only nation to name itself the centre of the world provides a clue….]
  • Tianxia

    • In ancient China, tianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Emperor by universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of this land was directly apportioned to the Imperial court, forming the center of a world view that centered on the Imperial court and went concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common citizens, tributary states, and finally ending with fringe "barbarians".

  • Tributary system of China

    • a network of loose international relations focused on China which facilitated trade and foreign relations by acknowledging China's predominant role in East Asia. It involved multiple relationships of trade, military force, diplomacy and ritual. The other nations had to send a tributary envoy to China on schedule, who would kowtow to the Chinese emperor as a form of tribute, and acknowledge his superiority and precedence.

  • Hua–Yi distinction

    • an ancient Chinese concept that differentiated a culturally defined "China" (called Huá, Huaxia 華夏; Huáxià, or Xià 夏) from cultural or ethnic outsiders (Yí, conventionally "barbarians"). …The Hua–Yi distinction asserted Chinese superiority

  • Four Barbarians

    • Tiānxià 天下 "[everywhere] under heaven; the world" encompassed Huáxià 華夏 "China" (also known as Huá, Xià, etc.) in the center surrounded by non-Chinese "barbarian" peoples.

    • Liu Junping and Huang Deyuan (2006:532) describe the universal monarch with combined political, religious, and cultural authorities: “According to the Chinese in the old times, heaven and earth were matched with yin and yang, with the heaven (yang) superior and the earth (yin) inferior; and the Chinese as an entity was matched with the inferior ethnic groups surrounding it in its four directions so that the kings could be valued and the barbarians could be rejected.”

Meanwhile, in the face of this long history of national and cultural self-centredness and self-importance, the Almighty Creator of the entire universe looks upon all the nations of mankind on this little dustball of a planet and considers them as being “like a drop from a bucket, and as the film of dust on the scales”!—Isa. 40:15.