Tag: Linguistics

Categories
Culture Languages

zìmǔ

zĂŹmǔ (zÏ·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] ć­—æŻ) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

As previous MEotW posts (like this one) have shown, “zĂŹ (character; word; letter 歗)” in Mandarin can mean “character”, such that “HĂ nzĂŹ (HĂ n·zĂŹ {Han (Chinese)} · Characters æ±‰ć­— æŒąć­—)”, for example, means “Chinese characters”. In fact, even though “zĂŹ (character; word; letter 歗)”, like its English counterpart “character”, can refer to printed or written letters or symbols in general, HĂ nzĂŹ (HĂ n·zĂŹ {Han (Chinese)} · Characters æ±‰ć­— æŒąć­—) are such an 800-pound gorilla in Chinese culture that in Mandarin, “zĂŹ (character; word; letter 歗)” by itself is often understood to specifically mean the HĂ nzĂŹ (HĂ n·zĂŹ {Han (Chinese)} · Characters æ±‰ć­— æŒąć­—), the Chinese characters. This way of thinking has spilled over into the English-speaking world as well, which is why when English-speaking publishers in the Chinese fields speak of “the characters”, that’s generally understood to mean “the Chinese characters”, which in turn is understood to mean the æ±‰ć­— and not the PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł), even though PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) is also Chinese and made up of characters (printed or written letters or symbols).

So, when we want to refer to a letter of an alphabet, as opposed to a Chinese character, when speaking Mandarin, we can make that clear by using this week’s MEotW, “zĂŹmǔ (zÏ·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] ć­—æŻ)”. In Mandarin, a zĂŹmǔ (zÏ·mǔ character; word · mothers → [letters (of an alphabet) [→ [alphabet]]] ć­—æŻ) is literally a “character/word mother”, something that characters or words come from.

How is it that even Chinese characters or words come from letters? Well, contrary to the traditional Chinese cultural view that Chinese characters are the primary aspect of Chinese languages, linguists (language scientists) now recognize that speech is primary and writing is secondary. So, a Mandarin expression is not primarily something written with Chinese characters, but rather is primarily something spoken in Mandarin. Whereas a Chinese character coarsely represents an entire syllable, letters of alphabets in general represent the individual speech sounds (called phonemes by linguists) that make up the spoken expressions that are the primary part of a language, and this is especially true of a purpose-designed phonetic alphabet like PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł).

For example, whereas the Chinese character “歗” represents an entire Mandarin syllable as one coarse unit, the PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) expression “zĂŹ (character; word; letter 歗)” finely spells out the initial sound, the final sound, and even the tone that actually make up that Mandarin syllable.

That speech and the individual sounds that make it up are the real foundation of any human language is such an important, unignorable linguistic principle that even schoolchildren in China (see especially the Z.T. subheading) learn basic Mandarin speech and PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł) before getting immersed in HĂ nzĂŹ (HĂ n·zĂŹ {Han (Chinese)} · Characters æ±‰ć­— æŒąć­—), Chinese characters, as tradition dictates.

Perhaps, then, it would be appropriate for Chinese culture, which values filial piety, to be more respectful towards the letters of its phonetic alphabet PÄ«nyÄ«n (PÄ«n·yÄ«n {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] æ‹ŒéŸł), which, both linguistically and educationally, are the “mothers” of the characters it loves so much!

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Languages Science

fāngyån

fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

The term “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)” 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] æ–č)” in “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)” is the “fāng (direction [→ [side; party | place; region | method; way [→ [prescription; recipe]] | power (math.)]] | {[is] square} [→ [[is] upright; honest]] | [mw for square things] æ–č)” in “dĂŹfang (dÏ·fang {(section of) earth → [place]} · {direction → [place]} → [place] 朰æ–č)”, and the “yĂĄn (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 蚀)” in “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)” is the “yĂĄn (speech; word; talk; language | say; talk; speak | character; syllable; word 蚀)” in “yǔyĂĄn (yǔ·yĂĄn language · {(type of) speech} èŻ­èš€ èȘžèš€)”.

“FāngyĂĄn (Fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)” has customarily been translated into English as “dialect”, but this practice can be misleading and confusing, because while “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)” 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 “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · {(patterns of) speech} æ–č蚀)”, 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 “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)”, Professor Mair proposed that the word “topolect” (topo- (“place”) +‎ -lect (“[language] variety”)) be used instead as an exact, neutral English translation of “fāngyĂĄn (fāng·yĂĄn {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] æ–č蚀)”. 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
History Languages

guānhuà

guānhuĂ  (guān·huĂ  {government official; mandarin} · speech → [(old name for) Mandarin | officalese; bureaucratese; bureaucratic jargon] ćź˜èŻ ćź˜è©±) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Why is Mandarin called “Mandarin” in English?

Kinnow, a variety of Mandarin orange widely cultivated in Pakistan

Nope, it wasn’t because of mandarin oranges.
Creative Commons logo SirSadiq

Wikipedia provides this summary:

The English word “mandarin” (from Portuguese mandarim, from Malay menteri, from Sanskrit mantrÄ«, mantrin, meaning ‘minister or counsellor’) originally meant an official of the Ming and Qing empires. Since their native varieties were often mutually unintelligible, these officials communicated using a KoinĂ© language based on various northern varieties. When Jesuit missionaries learned this standard language in the 16th century, they called it “Mandarin”, from its Chinese name GuānhuĂ  (ćź˜èŻ/ćź˜è©±) or ‘language of the officials’.[source]

So, according to the above summary, the English word “Mandarin” comes to us from Sanskrit, Malay, and Portuguese, and was chosen to correspond with this week’s MEotW, “guānhuĂ  (guān·huĂ  {government official; mandarin} · speech → [(old name for) Mandarin | officalese; bureaucratese; bureaucratic jargon] ćź˜èŻ ćź˜è©±)”. These days, Chinese speakers in general don’t refer to Modern Standard Mandarin as “guānhuĂ  (guān·huĂ  {government official; mandarin} · speech → [(old name for) Mandarin | officalese; bureaucratese; bureaucratic jargon] ćź˜èŻ ćź˜è©±)”[source], but apparently Chinese linguists still use this term:

Linguists use the term “Mandarin” to refer to the diverse group of dialects spoken in northern and southwestern China, which Chinese linguists call GuānhuĂ .

(Note that the English word “dialect” is often misused and misunderstood when applied to the Chinese languages, causing many to wrongly believe that Mandarin, Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. are merely dialects of a single Chinese language, when in fact, they are as different from each other as English is different from, say, Swedish or German. It really works better to consider Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. to be different languages, just as Swedish, German, etc. are considered to be different languages, and not just dialects of “European”. I hope to address this further in a future MEotW post.)

Because of its literal meaning of “government officials’ speech”, “guānhuĂ  (guān·huĂ  {government official; mandarin} · speech → [(old name for) Mandarin | officalese; bureaucratese; bureaucratic jargon] ćź˜èŻ ćź˜è©±)” is sometimes also used to refer to what in English we call “officalese; bureaucratese; bureaucratic jargon”.