Tag: The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy

Categories
Culture Language Learning Languages Science Technology

fā yǔyīn

fā ({send out} 发 發)
yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

While doing research for the MEotW post on “tíbǐ (tí·bǐ {carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]] 提笔 提筆)‐wàng (forget 忘)‐zì (character 字)”, I came across the web article “Why is character amnesia in China considered problematic?”. One of the points it makes involves this week’s MEotW, “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” (send voice message):

Another feature that has gained huge popularity in China recently is that of ‘sending voice messages’ (发语音, fā yǔyīn). Chinese Whatsapp equivalent ‘WeChat’ was the first in the world to introduce this feature in its app. Social media research by University College London has shown that Chinese WeChat users find voice messaging convenient because it eliminates the need to text. Informants have reported that sending written messages always takes more time, and that inputting Chinese characters was a struggle (Wang & McDonald, 2013). With voice messaging, or even with pinyin input, people do not need to memorize the exact order of each stroke of a character when typing a text. They can just rely on knowing the pronunciation and recognizing the character. The prevalence of typing and texting on cellular devices has been correlated to reduced active-character knowledge by Chinese natives, leading to the tibiwangzi-phenomenon (Williams, 2016).

Sending, Language, Sounds

The “fā ({send out}; issue; emit [→ [deliver | utter; express | become rich]] 发 發)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” literally means “send out; issue; emit”, and it can also be used to mean various things such as “deliver”, “utter; express”, and “become rich”. With such a variety of meanings, it shows up in various expressions, such as:

  • fāchū (fā·chū issue; send; emit · out 发出 發出)
  • fāchòu (fā·chòu emit · {being stinking} → [smell bad; stink] 发臭 發臭)
  • fāshēng (fā·shēng {issue forth} · {come to life} → [happen] 发生 發生)
  • fācái (fā·cái {issue forth} · wealth; riches → [get rich; make a fortune] 发财 發財) (“Fā ({issue forth (riches)} → [become rich] 发 發)” used on its own to mean “become rich” is probably an abbreviation of this expression.)
  • fāyīn (fā·yīn {sending out; issuing → [uttering] [of]} · sound → [pronouncing/articulating/enunciating | pronunciation; articulation; enunciation] 发音 發音)
  • etc.

The “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “language”. It can also particularly mean “speech”—according to a basic principle of linguistics, speech is the primary aspect of human language. This “yǔ (language; speech; tongue | saying; proverb | words; expression | speak; say 语 語)” is used in:

  • yǔyán (yǔ·yán language; tongue · {(type of) speech} 语言 語言)
  • Guóyǔ (Guó·yǔ National · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin (term commonly used in Taiwan)] 国语 國語)
  • Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language [→ [(Modern Standard) Mandarin]] 汉语 漢語)
  • Hányǔ (Hán·yǔ Korean · Language 韩语 韓語)
  • Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)
  • etc.

(Note that while “Yīngyǔ (Yīng·yǔ English · Language 英语 英語)”, for example, refers to English language speech, “Yīngwén (Yīng·wén English · Writing 英文)” refers, not to English speech, but to English language writing.)

The “yīn (sound [→ [musical note/sound; tone; pronunciation | syllable | news; tidings]] 音)” in “fā ({send out} 发 發) yǔyīn (yǔ·yīn {language → [speech]} · sounds → [voice message] 语音 語音)” basically means “sound”, and it can also be used to mean “musical note/sound”, “tone”, “pronunciation”, “syllable”, and “news; tidings”. It is used in:

  • shēngyīn (shēng·yīn sound; voice · sound 声音 聲音)
  • yīnyuè (yīn·yuè {(musical) sound} · music → [music] 音乐 音樂)
  • Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)
  • Zhùyīn (Zhù·yīn {Annotating of} · Sounds → [Zhuyin] 注音 註/注音)
  • Mǎtài (Matthew 马太 馬太) Fúyīn (Fú·yīn Blessings · News 福音)
  • etc.

Speech is Natural, Characters, Not So Much

Writing is by now an age-old technology for recording and transmitting human speech. Now, in 2023, audio recording and transmitting technology has been available for a long time that actually allows one to directly hear the recorded speech pretty much as it originally sounded. Additionally, such technology is getting more and more common and accessible, to the point that many are finding that it often is faster and easier to send audio voice messages than to write and send written messages, especially when using as complex and cumbersome a writing system as Chinese characters.

True, in some situations, writing has some advantages over speech, but overall, the linguistic principle remains true that when it comes to human language, speech is primary and writing is secondary. Indeed, if God had meant for us humans to mainly use writing to communicate, then he could easily have designed our bodies with built-in screens that are able to dynamically display writing, like even humans know how to make. Instead, God designed our brains and bodies such that parts of them are specialized for directly understanding and producing speech.

Thus, it is quite natural that people would often take advantage of technology that has become available that allows one to actually hear recorded speech, instead of always settling for the visual abstractions of writing. And, when writing is appropriate, it is similarly relatively natural for people to make use of writing systems like Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) that are primarily phonetic, that is, focusing on directly representing the sounds of speech.

The National, the Political, the Universal(?), the Individual, the Rituals

On the other hand, rather than naturally reflecting divine wisdom, the attachment of many to Chinese characters instead reflects some human shortcomings. On a national level, the justification that characters are helpful in politically unifying China in spite of it being comprised of groups speaking different languages is yet another example of a human ruling authority prioritizing its own political power and survival over what’s actually good for the people. Besides, there’s actually nothing special about characters when it comes to being usable by people who speak different languages. As John DeFrancis put it in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, in the chapter entitled “The Universality Myth” (p. 159),

Chinese characters used by Asians speaking different languages are no more universal than are Latin letters used by Europeans who also speak different languages.

For example, while it’s true that the character “台” is recognized by both Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers as meaning “table”, it’s also true that “table”, written in Latin alphabet letters, is recognized by both English-speakers and French-speakers as meaning “table”.

(In China specifically, rather than characters, say, allowing Mandarin-speakers who don’t know Cantonese to understand written-out Cantonese speech, with its unique vocabulary and characters, and vice versa, what has actually happened is that the politically dominant Mandarin-speakers have basically forced speakers of Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc. to learn and use written Mandarin instead of actual written Cantonese, Shanghainese, etc.)

On a more individual level, many who are attached to characters show that they cling to what is old and familiar, even if it is problematic, instead of reaching out for and embracing positive change and progress. Also, many who cling to characters and the intricate procedures required to handwrite them show that they prioritize traditions, rituals, and procedures over what really brings better results. As Jesus said, though, “wisdom is proved righteous by its works”, not by its traditions, rituals, and procedures.—Matthew 11:19.

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 History Names

dài

dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

This week’s MEotW, “dài ({take the place of}; replace; subsitute | replacing; substituting → [acting; substitute | generation [→ [period; era; age]]] 代)”, basically literally means “take the place of” or “replace”. Why, then, is it used to mean “generation”? This tweet briefly explains:

Yes, the Chinese concept of a “generation” is that it is something that takes the place of or replaces what was there before—the emphasis seems to be on continuation, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it lived up to or maintained what came before it. In contrast, in the English-speaking world, a “generation” is something new that is generated—the emphasis seems to be more on innovation, progress, and a new generation is viewed as having done well if it improved upon what came before it, and moved things ahead. For example, the English expression “next generation” indeed implies innovation and progress compared to previous generations, such as when applied to vehicles, computers, and other technology.

The Case of Star Trek: The Next Generation

Fans of Star Trek also generally naturally accept that of course in many aspects the world of Star Trek: The Next Generation is more advanced than the world of Star Trek: The Original Series—the ships are faster and more powerful, the special effects are better, etc. (Note that Star Trek: The Original Series was just called Star Trek when it first came out. “Star Trek: The Original Series” is a retronym that was applied to the show after other shows based on it began to appear.)

However, some Star Trek fans prefer Star Trek: The Original Series to Star Trek: The Next Generation, and do not view Star Trek: The Next Generation as better in every way compared to the original show. For example, many fans view original series characters like Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy as their favourite characters in all the Star Trek shows. Indeed, some would say Mr. Spock is the most iconic Star Trek character of them all.

By the way, the Mandarin translation of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” in mainland China is apparently “Xīngjì Lǚxíng: Xià-Yí-Dài ((Xīng·jì Stars · {Boundaries → [Among]} → [Interstellar] 星际 星際) (Lǚ·xíng Travelling · Going → [Journeying] 旅行): (Xià Below → [Next] 下)-(Yí One 一)-(Dài Replacing → [Generation] 代) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (mainland China translation)])”, according to the mainland Chinese version of Wikipedia. In contrast, “Star Trek: The Next Generation” is apparently called “Yín Hé Fēilóng (((Yín Silver 银 銀) (Hé River 河) → [Milky Way]) (Fēi·lóng Flying · Dragon [→ [Pterosaur]] 飞龙 飛龍) → [Star Trek: The Next Generation (Taiwan translation)])” (obviously not a literal translation) in Taiwan. While Wikipedia is of course not always right, in this case I have not been able to find any better source.

However, in an article on the official Star Trek website, I did find out about a big (literally) Chinese connection to Star Trek:

The building, according to Mashable.com, is the headquarters of NetDragon Websoft, a Chinese gaming and mobile Internet company. And the site notes, “Company Chairman Liu DeJian is reportedly an uberTrekkie, licensing from CBS the rights to build an Enterprise replica. Construction began in 2008 and was finished in 2014; the project cost $160 million total. The building is the only officially licensed Star Trek building on the planet.”

The Case of Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)

Speaking of generations of technology, and of replacings, it’s good for us Mandarin field language learners to remember that writing systems are technologies, and technologies are known to sometimes get replaced by newer generations of technologies. Also, with regard to Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) specifically, the original plan for modern-day China was for Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to one day replace Chinese characters. As the article “Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Was Plan A” says:

Pīnyīn was actually Plan A for modern-day China, but Plan A has not been fully followed through on, largely because of old-fashioned selfish pride, nationalism/“culturalism”, and traditionalism, with some intellectual self-indulgence thrown in there for good measure. As Jehovah’s people, we have been trained to recognize that these are very bad reasons for doing something, or for not doing something.

Letter from Mao Zedong re a “basic reform” of Chinese writing, involving a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing

(The above picture is from the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, by John DeFrancis.)

Nostalgia, Progress, and Generations

While humans of different cultures and generations disagree as to whether new generations are necessarily better, whether in technology, Star Trek, writing systems, or life in general, God’s Word helps us to understand his view of passing generations of humans and human activity.

Here are a few scriptures that come to mind in that regard:

A generation is going, and a generation is coming,
But the earth remains forever.
—Ecclesiastes 1:4

Do not say, “Why were the former days better than these?” for it is not out of wisdom that you ask this.
—Ecclesiastes 7:10

Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
—Luke 9:62

Brothers, I do not yet consider myself as having taken hold of it; but one thing is certain: Forgetting the things behind and stretching forward to the things ahead,
—Philippians 3:13

“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever,
—Daniel 2:44

Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.
—1 John 2:17