|
 |
Chinese v. Mandarin v. Cantonese | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| egill Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5702 days ago 418 posts - 791 votes  Speaks: Mandarin, English* Studies: German, Spanish, Dutch | Message 25 of 47 28 January 2011 at 12:11pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
Because words mean what people agree they mean. No one ever decreed that dialect has to refer to mutually intelligible languages. If I use the term "Chinese dialect" on this forum, almost everyone here understands that I'm referring to mutually unintelligible languages, with their own respective cultures/backgrounds/regions/whatever. The fact is, we simply don't have any good consistent definition of what a dialect is and what a language is. That we are able to understand each other is all that matters. Constantly posting walls of texts proving that the Sinitic languages are different does not help in any way, because you are telling us what we already know. It's not the fact that they are different that we cannot agree on, it's what precisely a dialect is, that's contentious. Common usage is for them to be called Chinese dialects, and in fact I also regard Mandarin as a Chinese dialect. I also regard them all as languages, there's no reason why we have to choose strictly one or the other. You say to stop denigrating non-mandarin dialects by calling them dialects, I say stop denigrating the word dialect by treating it like such a bad word. In the end we know exactly what the other person is saying, and that's the whole point of language. Edited by egill on 28 January 2011 at 12:12pm 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Aineko Triglot Senior Member New Zealand Joined 5454 days ago 238 posts - 442 votes Speaks: Serbian*, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Mandarin | Message 26 of 47 28 January 2011 at 10:49pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
so what? As I said, try going to some places of S. or C. and say that Croatian and Serbian are one language (you can even offer your argument that they can be taught in the same course)and see the result. In best case scenario you'll get a chauvinistic lesson, in worst case you'll get beaten up. On the other side, there is a vast majority of people in S. and C. who simply isn't sensitive about these things and don't get offended at all. You are looking on things from a linguistic point of view only and I commented on that in my previous post. The Balkans is one region where linguistic definitions are not sufficient to describe the situation. Chine seem to be another one and I'm sure there are more.
and who says it can't be used for mutually unintelligible ones?
I do not agree with any kind of cultural repression and the question Mandarin propagation in China is very sensitive and complicated one. On one side, a need for a common language is obvious while on the other side it certainly shouldn't be done the way it's done now. However, what I reacted here is this over-sensitiveness that you are displaying and which reminds me a lot of what I saw on the Balkans. I really don't understand the need to get offended when someone is simply uninformed and asks 'How mutually intelligible are Mandarin and Cantonese?'. In such cases I would say just get over it and calmly explain to that person what is the linguistic situation in China. That's like being offended when foreigners ask 'is your language Croatian?' if you are Serb or vice versa. As I said already, terms 'language' and 'dialect' obviously mean different things, depending on what we are talking about. If you stick to 'definition' "dialects are mutually intelligible. languages are mutually unintelligible. end of story" - you'll run into all sorts of troubles very soon. 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Aineko Triglot Senior Member New Zealand Joined 5454 days ago 238 posts - 442 votes Speaks: Serbian*, EnglishC2, Spanish Studies: Russian, Arabic (Written), Mandarin | Message 27 of 47 28 January 2011 at 11:07pm | IP Logged | ||||||||
excellent point egill, Mandarin is for me 'a Chinese dialect' as well, same like Cantonese. 'Chinese' is just a term that serves well when you are talking to 'everyday' people (people outside certain academic or language learning circles) and describes what you mean way more clearly than saying 'Sinitic languages' (most of the people have never heard of it). 1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| leosmith Senior Member United States Joined 6556 days ago 2365 posts - 3804 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Tagalog | Message 28 of 47 29 January 2011 at 3:00am | IP Logged | ||||||||
I agree. It's a very boring argument. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Darklight1216 Diglot Senior Member United StatesRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5106 days ago 411 posts - 639 votes Speaks: English*, French Studies: German | Message 29 of 47 29 January 2011 at 4:30am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I can't say that I've given this issue alot of thought. They're both Chinese to me.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5279 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 30 of 47 29 January 2011 at 9:21am | IP Logged | ||||||||
|
I understand why Cantonese speakers would be offended at having their language called a dialect. It's not. It's a
fully established language spoken by tens of millions of people with a different pronunciation from other Sinitic languages, additional characters, etc. and is not mutually intelligible with many of the other Sinitic languages. Would French speakers here be offended if someone said?: "Italian is Latin and French is a dialect of Latin." What really gets my goat is when languages are invented for political purposes. I'm thinking in particular here of the Macedonian language, which most linguists agree is dialect of western Bulgarian with Serbian lexical influences. Cantonese is not an invented language. 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5279 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 31 of 47 29 January 2011 at 9:33am | IP Logged | ||||||||
So are Hindi, Bengali, and Marathi different dialects of "Indian"? India and China are large post-imperial societies that stress ethnicity along the lines of being a citizen of the state, NOT ethnicity based on language. That's quite natural, because the linguistic diversity could have led to secessionism. Tamil Nadu is a case in point. In contrast, modern European ethnicity is usually constructed along the lines of language. Thus, German speakers in Bohemia and Poland were considered ethnic Germans, not Czechs or Poles. Hungarian speakers in Romania are ethnic Hungarians, not Romanians. This situation is particularly acute in eastern Europe. In western Europe, especially countries like the UK, France, and Spain, there are attempts to place ethnicity in the "state" context rather than the "language" context, with limited success. We see that in, for example, N. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, despite the penetration of English and centuries of coexistence, there is a strong sense of Irish, Scottish, and Welsh ethnicity. Likewise in France with Corsicans, Basques, and Bretons. Likewise Spain with Basques and Catalans. Because in Europe, ethnicity is usually constructed around language rather than genetics or citizenship, there is an "implied rule" that dialects within a language are merely regional differentiation within an ethnic group. Language, on the other hand, denote the ethnic group. When we apply this criterion to China or India, it's clear that these are conglomerate entities made up of many different ethnic groups which are bound together by the state, by history, by culture, by religion - but divided by language. Both China and India struggle with this phenomenon (Mandarin and Hindi/English being operating languages, although resented by many, Hindi more so than English in the case of India). As such, Cantonese speakers have a right to insist on Cantonese being called a language, while in no way rejecting the fact that they are just as Chinese (even Han Chinese) as the Mandarin speakers. China's insistence on the terminology of dialect rather than language is meant as a way to reduce secessionist aspiration and ought to be rejected as a political manoeuvre. Edited by Merv on 29 January 2011 at 9:34am 2 persons have voted this message useful | |||||||||
| Merv Bilingual Diglot Senior Member United States Joined 5279 days ago 414 posts - 749 votes Speaks: English*, Serbo-Croatian* Studies: Spanish, French | Message 32 of 47 29 January 2011 at 9:55am | IP Logged | ||||||||
But the situations are completely opposite. Both cases are those in which the locals are using "European definitions" and redefining the situation to fit their own political goals and identity. In the Stokavian speaking area, ethnicity is determined largely by religious affiliation in three major religions brought into the region by the Byzantine, Hungarian, and Ottoman empires. According to "European definitions," all Stokavian speakers would belong to one ethnic group, just as ethnic Germans are ethnically German regardless of whether they are Catholic or Lutheran, because it is the language that makes them German. Because the Stokavian-speaking ethnic groups feel distinct from each other (often greatly so, to the point of hatred), many have decided to name the language they speak after the name of the ethnic group, hence the ridiculous Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin phenomenon we have now. Depending on the situation, the government has encouraged or opposed these moves. Currently, the push for a Montenegrin language is driven by the government. Linguistically, these are highly mutually intelligible dialects of one and the same language. In contrast, the Chinese government manages dozens of different groups numbering in the tens of millions. Some of these groups are recognized by the Chinese government as minority ethnic groups, e.g. Mongols, Koreans, Manchus, Hmong-Mien, Tibetans, etc. The majority are considered Han Chinese (and self-identify as such). The Chinese government (and its people) consider all Han (Sinitic speakers) as being the "true Chinese" people, which is fine if this is how the people feel. The problem is that the government sees the "European definition" of language = ethnicity as causing splits amongst the Han. If language denotes ethnicity, then Min speakers, Hakka speakers, Yue speakers, Wu speakers, and Mandarin speakers are different ethnic groups, in the same sense the Russians, Poles, Bulgarians, and Czechs are. Neither the Chinese people nor the government want this, so the government rejects calling Sinitic languages as such, i.e. languages, and calls them merely dialects. So, even though Chinese civilization and self-identification did not develop according to "European definitions" they are using the "European definition" and altering the reality to fit the definition. Hence, Yue and Wu and "Hakka" are dialects, because to call them languages would mean that the Han are not one people but a conglomeration of Sinitic language family speakers. The problem is, "dialect" does not accord the honor a "language" deserves, and the reality is that these "dialects" are not mutually intelligible at all. And saying the Yue is a dialect of Chinese is only one step away from saying (down the line) that Yue is just a dialect of Mandarin. That's what jsun is fighting here, and I agree with him. Edited by Merv on 29 January 2011 at 9:57am 3 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. |
