Tag: Linguistics

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”

[This reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 15, 2021 seems to be a fitting companion to the recent reposting of the post on “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

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”!

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science

yǔxì

yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on February 8, 2021. It discusses the important basic issue of how Mandarin should be classified as a language, a subject about which much political and cultural propaganda has unfortunately been spread.]

[A past] 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 “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, this week’s MEotW.

The “yǔ (language; speech | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)” means “language”, particularly, the speech of a language, which modern linguists (language scientists) recognize to be the primary aspect of a language.

“Xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)”, as used in “yǔxì (yǔ·xì language · {tied (things) → [system; family]} 语系 語系)”, literally means “tied [(things)]”, and effectively means “system”, “series”, or “family”. Note that in this usage, the character “系” is the same in both simplified and traditional forms. Looking up the character “系” in the dictionary can get tricky, because the simplified character “系” can correspond to the traditional characters “系”, “係”, and also “繫”, 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] 简体 簡體) zì (characters 字)”.

BTW, an interesting other usage of “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” is in “Yín Hé ((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) Xì ({Tied (Things)} → [System] → [Galaxy] 系)”, in which “xì ({tied [(things)]} [→ [system; series | family]] 系)” effectively means “galaxy”.

Pinwheel Galaxy

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

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 Encyclopædia 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 “fāngyán (fāng·yán {direction → [place]} · speech → [topolect; dialect (common but misleading translation)] 方言)”:

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 Hawaiʻi 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 Experiences Language Learning Technology Theocratic

mángwén

mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文) 👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

Recently, jw.org featured the video “ ‘Without It, I Would Feel Lost’ ”, which, as its description says, is about “the experience of a blind man who has benefited from having the Bible in braille”. Where the English description of this video uses the word “braille”, the Mandarin description uses this week’s MEotW, “mángwén (máng·wén blind · writing → [braille] 盲文)”. And yes, as the existence of this Mandarin expression suggests, Chinese Braille (Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [Chinese] 中国 中國) Mángwén (Máng·wén Blind · Writing → [Braille] 盲文)) does indeed exist.

Braille in the Land of Characters

But, one may ask, how does braille, with just a limited number of raised dots, work for Mandarin Chinese when thousands and thousands of Chinese characters are usually used to write this language? The post “How Chinese Braille works”, on the blog The Language Closet, discusses this question:

There is one system that intrigues me. one that, [sic] seems a little too big for what braille is able to handle.

You see…, one braille cell contains 6 dots. Including the space, which consists of zero raised dots, there are only 64 possible combinations that can be formed per braille cell. But yet, it is this same system that could represent the entirety of the Mandarin Chinese language to provide accessibility to the blind users. How does it do that? After all, Chinese as we know it is written with thousands upon thousands of characters, each with their own meaning.

To get around this problem of representing thousands of characters in braille, we would have to ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable. Chinese is fairly restricted in its syllable structure, with syllables having a (CG)V(X)T structure, where C is the initial consonant, G is the glide, V is the vowel, X is the coda, and T is one of the four tones, or a neutral tone for weak syllables. So in the hanyu pinyin, the syllable zhuāng can be split into zh + u + a + ng + tone 1. After factoring in tone, there are around 1300 possible syllables, although Mandarin Chinese uses way less than that.

In Mandarin Chinese, there are only 21 possible consonant initials, which are, in hanyu pinyin,

b, p, m, f, d, t, n, l, g, j, k, q, h, x, zh, ch, sh, r, z, c, and s.

Furthermore, with a limited number of final combinations, that is, combining glides, vowels, and codas, every single combination of Chinese initials and finals could be represented in braille.

So, Chinese Braille does NOT work by trying to shoehorn a Chinese characters writing system into braille—even the Simplified one just wouldn’t fit. Instead, the approach taken was to “ditch the concept of the character, and to focus on the structure of the Chinese syllable”, a basic unit of Mandarin speech. Instead of being based on a Chinese characters writing system, with its thousands and thousands of inconsistent, haphazardly designed symbols, Chinese Braille is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), which consistently and elegantly represents any and all Modern Standard Mandarin speech with a reasonable number of symbols.

As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Is a Good, Workable Writing System on Its Own” says:

But, is Pīnyīn even really a writing system? Interestingly, the Chinese national standard Zhōngguó Mángwén (中国盲文/中國盲文, Chinese Braille) is basically a transliteration or conversion of Pīnyīn into braille letters.

From this fact, we can logically draw the following conclusion, as stated in the above-mentioned article:

Braille is obviously a writing system, so Pīnyīn must also be a writing system (see p. 9), not just a pronunciation aid.

But, What About Homophones?!

One of the primary objections raised to the idea of using Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a writing system, and not just as a pronunciation aid, is that there are supposedly so many homophones (different words that sound the same) in Mandarin that characters are required to disambiguate them, otherwise there would be mass confusion. However, users of Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), seem to be doing just fine, along with the billion or so people who regularly speak Mandarin without constantly showing each other the Chinese characters that are supposedly required to distinguish homophones from one another.

For more information about Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) and homophones, see the subheading “But There Are So Many Words That Sound the Same!” in the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A”. For those saying “tl;dr”, here is a bit of material from the conclusion of that section of the article:

The ultimate clarifier in modern Mandarin, even with all its existing homophones, is context, not characters. Characters themselves can have multiple possible meanings and multiple possible pronunciations, so one often has to, yes, check the context of something written in characters before the meaning and/or pronunciation of certain words in it can be determined with certainty.…

…That there are so many different words in modern Mandarin that sound the same is not a good reason not to use Pīnyīn, any more than it is a good reason not to speak Mandarin. Ironically, it is actually a good long-term reason not to use characters!

So, rather than being a real, valid reason not to use Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as an actual writing system for Mandarin, the objection that characters are required to cope with Mandarin’s homophones is really just copium (“cope”+“opium”) for those who fear that all the blood, sweat, and tears they have invested into trying to learn and remember characters will be made irrelevant. (Such ones shouldn’t really fear, though—the world is and will continue to be awash in Chinese characters, so knowledge of characters will continue to have some value, probably right up until the end of this system of things.) The truth, for those who are willing to face it, is that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) is just as real and workable a writing system for Mandarin as is Chinese Braille, which is based on Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音).