| Identification Of The Varieties Of Chinese |
Article Index for Identification |
Website Links For Identification |
Information AboutIdentification Of The Varieties Of Chinese |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT IDENTIFICATION OF THE VARIETIES OF CHINESE | |
| chinese language | |
| sinology | |
|
From a purely Descriptive point of view, "languages" and "dialects" are simply arbitrary groups of similar Idiolect s, and the distinction is irrelevant to linguists who are only concerned with describing regional speeches scientifically. However, the language/dialect distinction has far-reaching implications in socio-political issues, such as the national identity of China, regional identities within China, and the very nature of the (Han) Chinese "nation" or "race". As a result, it has become a subject of contention. SELF-DESCRIPTIONS OF SPEAKERS OF REGIONAL VARIANTS Although linguists have made great progress in describing and classifying the regional varieties of Chinese over the last century, their classification does not necessarily correspond to how these regional variants have traditionally been viewed and categorized. Thus, although the first-level divisions of Chinese are often referred to as "languages", they do not always correspond to linguistic or cultural self-identity. It is customary in China to refer to the speeches of cities and provinces, even though these provincial boundaries correspond poorly to the groupings devised by linguists. For example, the various dialects within Anhui Province are often called " Anhui Dialect ", even though they are scattered in four of the "Chinese languages" recognized by linguists — Mandarin , Wu , Hui , and Gan . Similarly, the dialects that linguistics consider to be part of the Wu language are spoken over Zhejiang Province, Jiangsu Province, Anhui Province, and Shanghai Municipality, and so can be described variously as " Zhejiang Dialect ", " Jiangsu Dialect ", " Anhui Dialect ", and " Shanghai Dialect ". Another example is that although the Sichuan Dialect is considered to be distinct from the Beijing dialect, linguists consider Sichuan Dialect and Beijing dialect both to be part of the Mandarin group. With such a contradiction between geography-based and linguistics-based classification, linguistic self-identity is also rather complex. On one hand, there is a tendency to regard dialects as variations of a single written Chinese language. This is partly because speakers of different varieties of Chinese all use One Formal Standard Written Language , athough in modern times this written language is itself based on one variety of spoken Chinese, Mandarin. In pre-20th Century China Classical Chinese was used. On the other hand, some regions with strong senses of regional cohesiveness have become more aware of regional groupings of dialects, as well as self-identities based on these linguistic groupings. In some self-identified linguistic groups, such as Wu or Hakka , these groups correspond well to those devised by linguists. In other self-identified linguistic groups, such as Teochew and Taiwanese , the correspondences are not as exact. It is notable that in Chinese, whether the Standard or the regional languages, there is typically no conscious distinguishing between "language" and "dialect" when referring to any of the languages, unless the subject matter necessitates the distinction (and even then, the distinction is not always made). If, for example, a Guangdong inhabitant refers to the Suzhou dialect, he talks about 蘇州話 ''Sūzhōu huà'' ("Suzhou speech"), not 蘇州方言 ''Sūzhōu dialect'' or the like. IMPLICATIONS OF THE LANGUAGE / DIALECT DISTINCTION The idea of single language has major overtones in politics and self-identity, and explains the amount of emotion over this issue. The idea of Chinese as a language family may suggest that China consists of several different nations, challenge the notion of a single Han Chinese nationality, and legitimize secessionist movements. This is why some Chinese are uncomfortable with it, while supporters of Taiwan Independence tend to be strong promoters of Min- and Hakka-language education. Furthermore, for some, suggesting that Chinese is more correctly described as multiple languages implies that the notion of a single Chinese language and a single Chinese state or nationality is artificial. However, the links between ethnicity, politics, and language can be complex. Many Wu, Min, Hakka, and Cantonese speakers consider their own varieties as separate spoken languages, but the Han Chinese nationality as one entity. They do not regard these two positions as contradictory, but consider the Han Chinese an entity of great internal diversity. Moreover, the government of the People's Republic Of China officially states that China is a Multinational State , and that the term "Chinese" refers to a broader concept '' Zhonghua Minzu '' that incorporates groups that do not natively speak Chinese, such as Tibetans , Uyghur s, and Mongols . (Groups that do speak Chinese are properly called Han Chinese , and are regarded as one component of a multiethnic whole.) This is seen as an ethnic and cultural concept, not a political one. Similarly, on Taiwan, some supporters of Chinese Reunification promote the local language, while some supporters of Taiwan independence have little interest in the topic. And the Taiwanese identity incorporates Taiwanese Aborigines , who are not considered Han Chinese because they speak Austronesian Languages , predate Han Chinese settlement, and are culturally and genetically linked to other Austronesian-speaking peoples such as Polynesia ns. COMPARISON WITH EUROPE Differences in the socio-political context of Chinese and European languages gave rise to the difference in terms of linguistic perception between the two cultures. In Europe, political fragmentation gave rise to independent states roughly the size of Chinese provinces. This generated a political desire to create separate cultural and literary standards to differentiate nation-states and standardize the language within a nation-state. In China, a single cultural and literary standard ( Classical Chinese and later, Vernacular Chinese ) continued to exist while the spoken language continued to diverge between different cities and counties, much as European languages diverged, due to the scale of the country, and the obstruction of communication by geography. The diverse Chinese spoken forms and common written form comprise a very different linguistic situation from that in Europe. In Europe, linguistic differences sharpened as the language of each nation-state was standardized. For example, a farmer on the French side of the border would start to model his speech and writing after Paris while his neighbour on the Spanish side after Madrid. The use of local speech became erroneous. In China, standardization of spoken dialects was weaker, and mostly due to cultural influence. Although, as with Europe, dialects of regional political or cultural capitals were still prestigious and widely used as the region's lingua franca, their linguistic influence depended more on the capital's status and wealth than entirely on the political boundaries of the region. COMPARISON WITH INDIA China's linguistic situation is more similar to India 's. Although India was historically not as unified as China, parts of it speaking multiple languages have long been united in various states, and many of its Languages were not standardized until the last few decades through political centralization. Like Classical Chinese, Sanskrit long played a role as a common written language. Unlike Classical Chinese, its descendants are recognized as separate languages, eighteen of which are official national languages. |
|
|