Tag: Dialects

Categories
Culture Experiences History Language Learning Languages

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”

[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.
  • 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.

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 Current Events History

kǒuzhào

kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[Note: Tap/click on a Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to reveal its “flashcard”, tap/click on a “flashcard” or its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) expression to hide the “flashcard”.]

As of this writing, early in the year 2022, the subject of the COVID-19 pandemic has been, to say the least, on people’s minds now for a while. So, it would be good to be able to refer to things related to it in Mandarin when speaking to people in the Mandarin field, or when speaking to our brothers and sisters in the truth.

electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19

An electron microscope image of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19
Creative Commons Attribution License logo NIAID

This week’s MEotW, “kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩)”, refers specifically to the kind of mask one puts on to cover one’s nose and mouth, as opposed to other kinds of masks. It pretty much has to refer specifically to this kind of mask, since, as its Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus “flashcard” information shows us, “kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩)” literally means “mouth cover”.

To say “wear/put on” a “kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩)” in Mandarin, one would say “dài (wear; {put on} 戴) kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩)”.

Rhotic (R-Like) Coda

A variant form of “kǒuzhào (kǒu·zhào mouth · cover → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩)” is “kǒuzhàor (kǒu·zhào·r mouth · cover · {child | youth | son → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect]} → [antiseptic/surgical/breathing/etc. mask (worn over nose and mouth)] 口罩儿 口罩兒)”, with an “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” at the end. This is an example of what in Mandarin is called “érhuà (ér·huà {(to have) ér} · transforming → [adding of “r” as a suffix (pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect); erization] 儿化 兒化)”. Wikipedia summarizes this thusly:

Erhua (simplified Chinese: 儿化; traditional Chinese: 兒化; pinyin: érhuà [ɚ˧˥xwä˥˩]); also called erization or rhotacization of syllable finals[source]) refers to a phonological process that adds r-coloring or the “er” (注音：ㄦ, common words: 耳、尔、儿[source]) sound (transcribed in IPA as [ɚ]) to syllables in spoken Mandarin Chinese. Erhuayin (simplified Chinese: 儿化音; traditional Chinese: 兒化音; pinyin: érhuàyīn) is the pronunciation of “er” after rhotacization of syllable finals.

It is most common in the speech varieties of North China, especially in the Beijing dialect, as a diminutive suffix for nouns, though some dialects also use it for other grammatical purposes. The Standard Chinese spoken in government-produced educational and examination recordings features erhua to some extent, as in 哪儿 nǎr (“where”), 一点儿 yìdiǎnr (“a little”), and 好玩儿 hǎowánr (“fun”). Colloquial speech in many northern dialects has more extensive erhua than the standardized language. Southwestern Mandarin dialects such as those of Chongqing and Chengdu also have erhua. By contrast, many Southern Chinese who speak non-Mandarin dialects may have difficulty pronouncing the sound or may simply prefer not to pronounce it, and usually avoid words with erhua when speaking Standard Chinese; for example, the three examples listed above may be replaced with the synonyms 哪里 nǎlǐ, 一点 yìdiǎn, 好玩 hǎowán. Furthermore, Erhua’s presence in Guoyu (國語) in Taiwan is diminishing and it is often not used at all.[source][source]

Also, the excellent Chinese Pronunciation Wiki has a page on “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)”, which points out that the Mandarin “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” is different from the “r” in English. It additionally goes into technical detail about how to use your mouth and tongue to correctly make the Mandarin “r ({child | youth | son} → [(diminutive) non-syllabic retroflex suffix; pronunciation feature in Beijing dialect] 儿 兒)” sound.

Western Worldy Politicization

It’s interesting to note how differently many people with an Eastern cultural background view the wearing of masks to help reduce the risk of catching or spreading COVID-19, compared to how some with a Western cultural background view it. One article that I found while researching this post, “Why East Asians Were Wearing Masks Long Before COVID-19”, summarized the situation this way:

Masking up is second nature to East Asian immigrants like Cho. But others haven’t taken so easily to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation to wear a facial covering. The guidelines have incited a nationwide feud about public health and civil liberties. Some Americans refuse to wear masks, claiming its contrary to their personal freedom. The most strident in the anti-mask movement have called them “unconstitutional,” “autocratic” and “muzzles.”

Meanwhile, in East Asian countries, the majority of the public adapted quickly to mask-wearing (or were already wearing them to begin with) ― something experts believe has contributed to lower COVID-19 death rates.

The article also goes into the long history in Asia of using masks to combat the spread of disease, a history that stretches back past the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak to at least the Great Manchurian Plague of 1910–1911.

Interestingly, the article points out who is considered to be the inventor of the anti-epidemic mask:

The invention of the anti-epidemic mask was attributed to Dr. Wu Lien-teh, a Cambridge-educated Chinese physician who led anti-plague operations on behalf of China in the region [during the Great Manchurian Plague of 1910–1911].

Balance and Subjection to the Superior Authorities

Eastern culture can sometimes go too far in prioritizing the collective at the expense of the individual, and Western culture can sometimes go too far in prioritizing the individual at the expense of everyone else, such that in such cases Eastern and Western cultures end up just being different ways for humans to get things wrong. In contrast, as Jehovah God tells us in the Bible:

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So my ways are higher than your ways
And my thoughts than your thoughts.
—Isaiah 55:9.

Thankfully, as Jehovah’s people, we have balanced and wise direction from his Word and his organization that help us to rise above the ways and thoughts of imperfect humans living in Satan’s world. For example:

Jehovah’s Witnesses cooperate with public health officials. For example, since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, Jehovah’s Witnesses have continued to publish reminders in hundreds of languages on this website, encouraging adherence to local safety guidelines. These include the importance of physical distancing and of following regulations on public gatherings, quarantining, hand washing, and the wearing of face coverings as well as other practical measures required or recommended by the authorities.—Romans 13:1, 2.
—“Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Opposed to Vaccination?” (article on jw.org)

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔzú

yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族) ← 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, “yǔzú (yǔ·zú language · {ethnic group → [group of things with common characteristics] → [group]} 语族 語族)”, as Prof. Mair confirms in the article (p. 747) mentioned above.

If “zú (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 每) ge ([mw] 个 個/箇/个) guózú (guó·zú national · {ethnic group} → [nation] 国族 國族), bùzú (bù·zú sectional · {ethnic group} → [tribe] 部族), yǔyán (yǔ·yán language · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言), hé (and 和) mínzú (mín·zú {(of) people} · {ethnic group} → [people] 民族)”.

The Mandarin Word for “Language Branch”

For reference, the Mandarin word for “language branch” is “yǔzhī (yǔ·zhī language · branch 语支 語支)”, 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”!