Tag: The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy

Categories
Culture History Language Learning Names Technology

Hànzì

Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

[This is a reposting of a post that was originally posted on November 23, 2020. It discusses how, in the big picture, we Mandarin field language learners should view Chinese characters, those seemingly essential but maddeningly difficult-to-learn-and-remember icons of worldly Chinese culture.]

“Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)” is what Chinese characters are called in Mandarin. Actually, “Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)” literally means “Han characters”, but as discussed in the MEotW post on “Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language [→ [(Modern Standard) Mandarin]] 汉语 漢語)”, the Han are by far the largest ethnic group in China, and they are the dominant cultural force in China. Thus, Han characters are, in effect, Chinese characters.

漢字 汉字

Han culture has affected not only China, but also many of the surrounding nations. The words used by some of these nations to refer to “Chinese characters” are obvious echoes of “Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)”:

  • Japanese: kanji
  • Korean: Hanja
  • Vietnamese: hán tự

Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) are still used a lot in modern Japanese writing. However, although Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) used to be the dominant writing system in Korea and in Vietnam, those nations have moved on to mainly use alphabetic writing systems.

The Korean Connection

Regarding the situation in Korea, the Awake! article “Let’s Try Writing in Hankul!” says:

BEFORE Hankul [or Hangul] was created, the Korean language did not have its own script. For more than a thousand years, educated Koreans wrote their language using Chinese characters. Over the years, however, various attempts were made to devise a better writing system. But since all of them were based on Chinese characters, only the well-educated could use them.

…

King Sejong spearheaded the creation of an alphabet that would both suit spoken Korean and be easy to learn and use.

…

Sadly, some scholars opposed Hankul, precisely because it was so easy to learn! They derisively called it Amkul, meaning “women’s letters.” They disdained a system that could be learned even by women, who back then were not taught to read in the schools. This prejudice against Hankul persisted among upper-class Koreans for some time. In fact, more than 400 years elapsed before the Korean government declared that Hankul could be used in official documents.

The Chinese Conundrum

How about the writing system situation in China itself? Do the Chinese languages need to be written using Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)? Chinese traditionalists have influenced many people to assume so, but there is actually no technical linguistic requirement that any Chinese language be written using Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字)—writing Chinese languages using Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) is purely and merely a deeply embedded tradition.

Proof that the use of Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) is merely a tradition and not a technical requirement comes from the fact that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音), a phonetic alphabetic system designed by a Chinese government team, is a good, workable full writing system for Modern Standard Mandarin.

Why has China held on to its traditional use of Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) when other nations have moved on to alphabetic writing systems? As mentioned in the MEotW post on “Zhōngguó (Zhōng·guó Central · Nation → [China | Chinese] 中国 中國)”,

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….

When the Communists took over China a few years after World War II, their Plan A for China’s writing system situation actually did involve eventually moving on from the characters to an alphabetic writing system that would be developed, which turned out to be Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音). However, the government needed the help of the people already educated in Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字), and many of these people opposed this plan that they feared would involve leaving behind, or at least de-emphasizing, a cultural tradition that they were very proud of, that they had invested very much time and effort into mastering, and that gave them much prestige in the existing environment.1 In other words, the pride and prejudice of those who had already been educated in the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) caused them to disparage and oppose the idea of a simpler alternative writing system, just as had been the case in Korea, as noted above. So, the simplification of the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) is the farthest China has gotten so far with regard to official writing system reform, and even that has only been achieved in the face of much criticism and opposition.

Chairman Máo Zédōng ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (Zé·dōng Marsh · East 泽东 澤東) (the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) (Wikipedia article) himself supported continuing to move on, from simplification of the characters to actually adopting Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) as a writing system. In a letter to an old schoolmate, he wrote:

…Pinyin writing is a form of writing that is relatively convenient. Chinese characters are too complicated and difficult. At present we are only engaged in reform along the lines of simplification, but some day in the future we must inevitably carry out a basic reform.2

Letter from Mao endorsing a transition from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing

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

While obviously what Máo ((Máo Hair (surname) 毛) (abbr. for Máo Zédōng, the founder of the People’s Republic of China)) foresaw regarding a writing system “basic reform” in China has not yet come true, American sinologist and University of Pennsylvania Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations Victor H. Mair wrote in a blog post:

So, those who are in favor of HP [Hànyǔ (Hàn·yǔ {Han (Chinese)} · Language → [(Modern Standard) Mandarin] 汉语 漢語) Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音)] don’t need to be concerned, and those who are opposed to HP don’t need to be frightened. HP is ineluctably playing a greater and greater role in the educational, cultural, social, political, and every other aspect of the lives of Chinese citizens, and this is occurring without regard to anyone pushing it as a governmental program. It is happening because of the wishes of those who actually use it for a wide variety of helpful purposes.

Digraphia [the use of more than one writing system for the same language, in this case the use of both Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) and Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) for writing Modern Standard Mandarin] is emerging before our very eyes, enabling people to use the alphabet and the characters for whatever purposes they deem suitable. Nobody needs to take a vote or carry out a survey for this to happen.

Tourists or Missionaries?

Regardless of how worldly Chinese people view the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字), how should we dedicated Mandarin field language-learners view them? It would be easy to fall back on the commonly accepted view, the tourist’s view, that the Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) are an integral and fascinating part of China’s precious cultural heritage that we should duly respect and even heap adulation upon.

However, as Mandarin field language-learners, we are not in the Mandarin field to be tourists just enjoying the exotic foreign culture. On the contrary, we must be more like missionaries or spiritual rescue workers involved in an urgent life-saving work, because lives are indeed involved. As ones involved in an urgent, life-saving work, we need tools, technologies, and systems that efficiently and effectively help us to get this work done without wasting time and effort when people’s everlasting lives are at stake. From this sober and pragmatic angle, the extraordinarily difficult-to-learn-and-remember Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) are far from ideal. Thus, while there is obviously value in learning as many Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字) as one is reasonably able to, it is fortunate that Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) exists and is available as a simple, effective alternative writing system for Mandarin, for the many times when it is not necessary to use Hànzì (Hàn·zì {Han (Chinese)} · Characters 汉字 漢字).

 

1. John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1984), p. 258. ^

2. Ibid., p. 295. ^

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 Current Events Language Learning Science Technology Theocratic

jiǎ xiāoxi

jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚)
xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息) ← Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”

At the time of this writing, jw.org was featuring the whiteboard animation video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”. The English and Mandarin versions of this video match the English word “misinformation” with this week’s MEotW, “jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”:

Screenshot from the video “Protect Yourself From Misinformation”, 0:32 mark, showing “Misinformation” in the subtitle

Screenshot from the video “消息满天飞，如何辨真假”, 0:32 mark, showing “假消息 (jiǎ xiāoxi)” in the subtitle

[Note: The MEotW post on “shèjiāo wǎngzhàn ((shè·jiāo {god of the land → [society] → [social]} · {meeting → [associating]} → [social contact/interaction] 社交) (wǎng·zhàn {net → [web]} · {stand → [station]} → [website] 网站 網站) → [social networking website; social network])” contains information about how to add unproofread computer-generated Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) to the subtitles of Mandarin videos on jw.org in most browsers.]

“Jiǎ (false; fake 假 假/叚) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” can also be translated as “false news”, “false information”, or perhaps even “fake news”, as confirmed by the entry for this expression in the excellent Referenced Theo. Expressions (RTE) resource.

Disappearing?

“Jiǎ ({[is] false; fake; phony; artificial} | if; supposing; assume; presume | borrow; {avail oneself of} 假 假/叚)” means “false” or “fake”, and “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)”, while used to effectively mean “news” or “information”, actually literally means “disappearing news”. Why “disappearing”? Perhaps that is a nod to the fleeting nature of news—relatively quickly, when it’s not new anymore, it’s not news anymore.

The Wiktionary entry for “xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” seems to bear this out, as it says:

消息 (xiāoxi) refers to news as in new information; to express the meaning of news as in reports of current events, use 新聞／新闻 (xīnwén).

“Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news; information] 消息)” also appears in the expression “hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)”, meaning “good news”, which we use often in the Mandarin field. In fact, “Hǎo (Good 好) Xiāoxi (Xiāo·xi Disappearing · News → [News] 消息)”! is the title of the concluding song for this year’s Mandarin conventions! (English, Mandarin, Pīnyīn (Pīn·yīn {Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin] 拼音) Plus) Also, we will say “Wángguó (Wáng·guó King’s · Nation → [Kingdom] 王国 王國) de (’s 的) hǎo (good 好) xiāoxi (xiāo·xi disappearing · news → [news] 消息)” when we want to refer to “the good news of the Kingdom”. Of course, while the message of this good news will “disappear” as news when it is not news anymore, the Kingdom itself “will stand forever”!—Daniel 2:44.

Myths and Misinformation About Chinese Characters, Etc.

As Mandarin field language learners, we need to be aware that many myths and much misinformation have been spread about the Chinese languages, especially when it comes to Chinese characters. Indeed, there is so much misinformation about Chinese characters that Victor Mair wrote the following in the foreword of the book Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning, by J. Marshall Unger:

There is probably no subject on earth concerning which more misinformation is purveyed and more misunderstandings circulated than Chinese characters (漢字, Chinese hanzi, Japanese kanji, Korean hanja), or sinograms.

Also, in his book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, John DeFrancis lists the following myths regarding Chinese characters, that many believe:

  • The Ideographic Myth
    • The MEotW post on “Hāmǐjíduōdùn (Armageddon 哈米吉多顿 哈米吉多頓)” contains a discussion of this myth, with some selected excerpts on this subject from DeFrancis’ book.
  • The Universality Myth
  • The Emulatability Myth
  • The Monosyllabic Myth
  • The Indispensability Myth
  • The Successfulness Myth

Regarding these myths, in p. 2–3 of his aforementioned book, J. Marshall Unger provides this summary:

Passing for the moment over the history of how the hunt for the perfect language unfolded, let us jump ahead to the result: the intellectual baggage about Chinese characters that we have inherited from the Renaissance and Enlightenment. John DeFrancis, in his classic book The Chinese Language (1984), sums up that weighty legacy under six headings, and a better summary would be hard to find. The source of all the confusion is what DeFrancis calls the Ideographic Myth, the notion that Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without reference to language (that is, speech) in any way. Its logical extension is the Universality Myth, according to which Chinese script allows for communication between mutually uninteligible dialects and languages. This leads in turn to the Emulatability Myth, which holds that Chinese script can serve as a model for a general system of signs that transcends natural language. These first three myths have little to do with the actual structure or history of the Chinese language or its writing system, in contrast with the remaining three: the Monosyllabic Myth, Indispensability Myth, and Successfulness Myth. Each of these—the names are more or less self-explanatory—makes a strong claim about language and the writing system, claims that have had significant social and political consequences.

At least some of the political consequences referred to above have been deliberate, meaning that at least some of the myths and misinformation spread about Chinese languages and Chinese characters qualify as political propaganda. If we’re not careful, we could end up parroting this political propaganda. (We could also end up parroting worldly human cultural propaganda, which is also a bad thing for people who seek to be no part of the world.) Also, all the difficulties and confusion caused by all the myths and misinformation surrounding Chinese languages and Chinese characters massively hinder the efforts of Mandarin field language learners to stay spiritually strong and to reach the hearts of Mandarin-speakers with Bible truth. This can result in deeply negative spiritual consequences that should be of great concern to us. To complete the sentence quoted from the video mentioned at the beginning of this post:

Misinformation isn’t just inaccurate; it can also be dangerous!