|
 |
Chinese v. Mandarin v. Cantonese | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6588 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes  Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 1 of 47 22 January 2011 at 6:03am | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
Why do some people (including, sometimes, me) get so sensitive when someone refers to Mandarin as "Chinese"? Why do people get upset when you call Cantonese a "dialect"? I'll try to make a short explanation from my point of view.
Speakers of Catalan don't get upset when you call Castilian "Spanish" (do they?). So why do some Cantonese speakers get so upset when you call Mandarin "Chinese"? And what's the deal with the whole Chinese "dialect" thing? It's common usage and it's just words and they don't have specific definitions, anyway. We all know that Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually comprehensible, including those who call Cantonese a "dialect". There's no accepted definition that says that dialects are mutually comprehensible while languages are not. Here's the issue. Either of those statements are fine. Chinese=Mandarin. Fine. Cantonese is a dialect. Fine. The problem occurs because both of them occur at the same time, sometimes by the same people. If you in one breath say "Chinese" and mean "Mandarin" and in the next call Cantonese a "dialect", well … what's it a dialect of? Chinese, of course. And Chinese=Mandarin, so that makes Cantonese a dialect of Mandarin. That's the problem. That's what gets people. This is how those statements imply that Cantonese is just a "version" of Mandarin. Add to this the fixation many Chinese have with "standard" varieties. The most common compliment students of Mandarin get on their pronunciation is that it's very "standard" (標準 / 标准). Having a "standard" accent is very desirable and Cantonese is obviously not very "standard" from a Mandarin viewpoint. Thus it feels like Cantonese gets belittled. So technically is you use one of these statements but not the other, you're not belittling Cantonese, but the fact is that both are in common usage and people may take your statement in this context. There's also a lot of cultural issues behind this. Southern China has historically often been a bit on the outskirts of Chinese culture. The historical, original China that still forms the heartland of Chinese civilization does not include the south. Guangdong province used to be populated by a different people. It's a conquered province. During much of history it hasn't been really considered "Chinese", much like you might today think of Xinjiang or Tibet as belonging to China but not really being "Chinese". The inhabitants of Guangdong province today are descendants of both the Yue (越) people and the Han (漢) people who moved into the region when it was conquered. They have often been considered "uncultured". They themselves, however, often strongly feel themselves to be part of the Chinese culture and this has led to a defensive nationalist feeling which give rise to strong feelings when you imply they're not Chinese. In fact, many Cantonese will argue that they're more Chinese than the northerners, who were conquered first by the Mongols and then by the Manchurians, whose influence was much smaller in the south than in the north. This is why you'll hear some Cantonese referring to Mandarin as "Manchurian Chinese", implying that since Cantonese is in fact more conservative than Mandarin, it's the true Chinese language. This post is not to convince you to talk in a specific way. It's not meant to persuade you to adopt a PC attitude. I don't get offended and even if I did, you've got the right to offend people. Free speech. I just wanted to give some of the information behind the feelings so you'll know why some people make such a fuss about it. 22 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5351 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 2 of 47 22 January 2011 at 4:25pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I haven't studied either of these languages, but if they're mutually unintelligible I don't see how one might be regarded as a dialect of the other. If Spanish and Italian are separate languages, then so must be Mandarin and Cantonese. Regarding the name of the language though, just as there are no Le Castillan or Le Toscan sans peine, increasingly Mandarin and Chinese will become synonyms.
I've been curious lately about Cantonese but have seen conflicting opinions on it. To what degree are written Cantonese and Mandarin divergent? Is there a distinct and significant Cantonese literary tradition? Are specifically-Cantonese books on academic, political or social subjects produced, or do these subjects in Cantonese-speaking areas become subsumed under "written Chinese" and thus accessible just as well to Mandarin speakers? 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6588 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 3 of 47 22 January 2011 at 5:01pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
But if you distinguish dialect and language in terms of mutual intelligibility, you'll have to call Swedish a "dialect of Scandinavian". And nobody does that. And you run into serious trouble in dialect gradients, where the spoken dialect in each village is mutually intelligible with the one in the next, but becomes increasingly unintelligible the farther you go.
Almost but not quite identical grammar, about 2/3 common vocabulary. It depends on how formal the text is. The more formal, the closer Cantonese will resemble Mandarin, with just the function words and some of the more common verbs replaced. Such a text could be made intelligible to a Mandarin speaker after five minutes of instruction. In more colloquial registers, the difference grows wider and it becomes very difficult for a Mandarin speaker to make any sense of it. For a Mandarin speaker, reading written Cantonese in the more colloquial registers could probably be compared to reading Japanese.
Distinct yes, significant no. Texts written partially in Cantonese go back to the Ming dynasty (some five hundred years or so). Text completely written in Cantonese vernacular don't show up until the middle of the 20th century. Nowadays in Hong Kong you'll find comic books written in Cantonese and newspapers and magazines often have columns in Cantonese. Direct quotes are also sometimes in Cantonese, though it's quite common to translate them, too. The most important and publicly visible use of written Cantonese is today in advertising. In general written Cantonese must be "sanctioned" by either a strong connection to spoken language (speech bubbles, direct quotes) or by light content. There is an interesting literary style called "saam kap dai" which mixes Classical Chinese, Modern Standard Mandarin and colloquial Cantonese. It allows an extremely broad register and skilled writers could achieve very interesting contrasts by switching between and mixing the languages. Unfortunately, as Classical Chinese knowledge is dying out, nobody really writes or reads saam kap dai literature anymore. There is pretty much no written Cantonese in mainland China, except for on the web and in text messages.
There are no such books written. There was a brief movement in the 40s called the Cantonese Dialect Literature Movement (DLM) with academic articles and literature written in Cantonese by communist writers who wanted to stir the workers by writing in the common vernacular. This was very much encouraged by the communists until they took power, at which point the priority changed to unifying the nation and dialects became discouraged. Thus the movement died abruptly in 1949 and had no successors. The only "academic" text in Cantonese you'll find today are in the Cantonese version of Wikipedia. Also please note that there are many Cantonese speakers vehemently opposed to written Cantonese, arguing that it's "vulgar" or that written and spoken language should be different (of course they have nothing against Standard Chinese, which aligns very closely to spoken Mandarin). For more information, I heartily recommend those interested to read Cantonese as a Written Language by Don Snow. Edited by Ari on 22 January 2011 at 5:10pm 11 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5351 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 4 of 47 22 January 2011 at 5:40pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Thanks so much for your reply, it has been very useful to me. If what you write above is indeed the case, then sadly I don't believe I would be interested in learning Cantonese. I had thought that given Hong Kong's separate and special history, learning Cantonese would provide me a unique view on what a more liberal modern Chinese civilization could be like. If they don't give voice to their views on society through printed books though, this would not serve my purpose as I don't travel and can't have direct contact with its speakers. I'll order and read the book you recommended. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Raincrowlee Tetraglot Senior Member United States Joined 6708 days ago 621 posts - 808 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin, Korean, French Studies: Indonesian, Japanese | Message 5 of 47 22 January 2011 at 8:08pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
I think the main reason for this contradiction is that people are stating positions that they learned, not that they discovered for themselves. Mandarin = Chinese because Mandarin is the official language of China. Cantonese is a dialect of Chinese because it is spoken by Chinese people in China. They aren't really distinguishing for themselves what the difference between language and dialect are, and probably have no understanding of what would be involved in trying to determine whether you were speaking a dialect or a separate language. They know Cantonese and Mandarin are related in some way, and a dialect is a related type of language, so....
1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Ari Heptaglot Senior Member Norway Joined 6588 days ago 2314 posts - 5695 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese Studies: Czech, Latin, German | Message 6 of 47 23 January 2011 at 3:35pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Well, they do of course give voice to their views on society through printed books, but those books are printed in Mandarin. However, most Hong Kongers who read these books read them with Cantonese pronunciation, since many don't speak Mandarin at all. To the average Hong Konger, these books are formal written Cantonese, as opposed to the informal variety which corresponds to spoken Cantonese. In fact, if you walk into a bookstore in Hong Kong and ask for a book written in Cantonese, they probably won't understand what you mean. I remember asking for movies with subtitles in Cantonese, as opposed to Mandarin, and I had troubles explaining what I wanted. Standard Written Chinese is what replaced Classical Chinese in Hong Kong and it's usually viewed in pretty much the same way, as a formal written language contrasted to the informal spoken one. As such, the situation can probably be likened to that in many Arabic countries, where spoken and written language differ. You could learn Cantonese and read books written in Mandarin, by just using the Cantonese pronunciation. This is what millions of Hong Kongers do. Or you could learn Mandarin and get access to those same books without the hassle of needing to learn two grammars and two sets of vocabulary. With a focus on traditional characters you'd get access to the books in Taiwan, too. In fact, that might be a better focus for you, as Taiwanese literature is probably, well, better. The fact is that just about all books written by Hong Kong authors are written by second language learners. They don't write in their native language, which is probably the reason that Hong Kong literature isn't that acclaimed. The Taiwanese authors do write in their mother tongue, however, and Taiwanese literature is much more acclaimed. However, you can find a lot of thought on the Hong Kong view on society in the film industry. Hong Kong movies are some of the best in the world and they're pure, unfiltered Cantonese. In fact, many of them lose a lot in translation. So I'd personally recommend you to learn Cantonese and fall in love, as I have, with the rich and deep fountain that is Hong Kong cinema. This will without a doubt give you a fascinating and close view of what a more liberal modern Chinese society is like. The Hong Kong movie culture has few if any equals in this world. 8 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5351 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 7 of 47 23 January 2011 at 4:40pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
|
This is very interesting. I have also been very curious about Taiwan, and being a student of Japanese will probably help me with traditional characters.
I hadn't thought about Hong Kong cinema. I've seen In the Mood for Love, but isn't Hong Kong cinema mostly associated with fighting movies? What other movies would you recommend? I'm mostly a reading-type aspiring polyglot, but I could download some Cantonese movies with subtitles and see what they're like. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||||||||
| strikingstar Bilingual Tetraglot Senior Member United States Joined 5179 days ago 292 posts - 444 votes Speaks: English*, Mandarin*, Cantonese, Swahili Studies: Spanish, Arabic (Written) | Message 8 of 47 23 January 2011 at 5:04pm | IP Logged | |||||||||||
Infernal Affairs (无间道 - mou gaan dou) is a good movie. The Departed is actually a remake of this movie. There are also good movies by the likes of Wong Kar Wai and John Woo, like Chungking Express (重庆森林 - chong qeng saam leng) and A Better Tomoorow (英雄本色 - eng hung buun sek). 2 persons have voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
