Job Discussion Forums

[Ludwig]

Interestingly, perhaps, and most certainly relevant to those interested in any form of Chinese, Mandarin has no everyday word for �word�. The �word� commonly cited by laymen in Chinese linguistics as being in some sense equivalent to �word�, z�, in fact is best translated as �syllable�. Many of these syllables, it so happens, also happen to be words; r�n �person�, gāo �tall�, chī �eat�, li� �six�, shu� �who�. Others, however, are not. The suffixes �tou and �zi form parts of words, e.g., sh�tou �stone� and shīzi �lion�, but they are obviously not themselves words, at least not in the intuitive sense recognised above. Nevertheless, �tou and �zi are considered to be z� by speakers of Mandarin; both na�ve laymen and (Chinese and Western) professors of Chinese linguistics.

The syntactic unit to which the Chinese syllable most closely corresponds, and this is a term that will eventually help us begin to see how the question posed above can be made more coherent and thus answerable, is the morpheme. The morpheme, though an abstract, technical concept from linguistics, is vastly simpler to define than the word.

Put simply for a non-technical audience, the morpheme is the smallest linguistic element that boasts of �meaning�. Thus, �friendly� can be analysed into two elements (or morphemes): �friend� and �-ly�. One point of great importance here is that, although the morpheme is classically defined as (usually something akin to) �the smallest linguistic element of meaning�, it does not have to be able to �stand alone� as it were. Thus, while �friend� is a morpheme that also happens to be a word, and thus obviously can �stand alone�, �-ly�, equally as obviously, cannot. Both are morphemes, but only �friend� is a word. So now we have identified two types of morphemes: bound and free. �Friend� is a free morpheme as it can �stand alone�, �appear in isolation�, (call it what you will), and �-ly� is a bound morpheme which can only appear when combined with (or, bound to) another (usually, free) morpheme. A good example of a large class of bound morphemes in any language, if it has them, is affixes, that is, prefixes and suffixes.

In the same way, the Chinese suffixes �tou and �zi are also morphemes. A native speaker of Mandarin, when parsing, divides an utterance into syllables, or z�, each of which is invariably a morpheme. Zhōnggu�, the word for China, is composed of two morphemes, zhōng �middle� and �gu� �country� (or some other, grander, �translation� such as �kingdom�). This construction obviously parallels the English construction of �Finland� (�Land of the Finns�), except in that the Chinese suffix �gu� cannot, in fact, �stand alone� in the way the English �land� can. (The Mandarin for �country� is a compound: gu�jiā.)

Yet, to the Chinese, the name of their country is an expression composed of two syntactic units and is similar to the English �United States�. As a result, they often feel quite justified in ignoring Western conventions of �word division� and Romanise it as Zhōng Gu�. Western writers, I have noticed, often go along with these feelings and frequently hyphenate it as Zhōng-gu�, (or Chung-guo in the Wade Giles system). This despite the fact, of course, that they would never dream of penning �Fin-land� or �Eng-land�.

Of the Mandarin textbooks employed here in Hong Kong that I have researched, dissyllabic words such as kăosh� �test�, lăoshī �teacher� are usually written in Pinyin as kăo sh� and lăo shī. Those of you who often speak Mandarin with young children (or perhaps �uneducated� villagers) will most likely have noticed that when a native speaker asks you, for example, what a word like jīguāng means, he is likely to say something akin to: �Jīguāng, zh�i liăngge z� sh� sh�nma y�?� Jīguāng means �laser� and what a speaker of Mandarin is likely to say is glossed as (something like): �Jī (and) guāng, these two z�, what do they mean?�

In recent times PRC policy makers have decided that the concept of �a word� should be introduced. However, the �word� they chose for �word�, namely, c�, was in fact a technical linguistic term, just as is the English �morpheme�. As such, c�, is not part of �the average person�s� vocabulary anymore than �morpheme� is in the vast English-speaking world. Jī and guāng are both meaningful; they are morphemes that literally mean �stimulated� and �light� and the Chinese are justified in feeling that each is a unit in its own right under its own terms.

One particularly illuminating index of the somewhat confused status of �the word� is offered by that of the Romanisation of academic journal titles. Those of you who teach in universities in China may want to go to your library and look at some of the journal titles! Remember, in Chinese, the syllable is of the utmost importance in any serious non-lay description of the language and that, in Chinese, a completely meaningless syllable is quite literally an anomaly (a few, scattered arguably historical remnants from former loanwords such as h�die �butterfly� notwithstanding). Some titles are written monosyllabically; for example, Zhe Xue Yan Jiu �Philosophical Research�, Xue Shu Yue Kan �Academic Monthly�, and Li Shi Dang An �Historical Archives�. Others, such as Lishi Yanjiu �Historical Research� and, one I am especially interested in, Zhōnggu� Yŭw�n �Chinese Linguistics�, are obviously more in keeping with Western orthography. Some editors, however, seem to have taken it somewhat too far. One example that springs to mind is Shenyangshifanxueyuanxuebao, or, in English, �The Journal of Shenyang Teachers College� (!)

For those of you na�ve enough about Mandarin to think that this is simply �a result of the switch over from characters to Roman script�, think again! Arguably the problems posed to those engaged in standardising the Pinyin �word� stem from the basic, underlying features of Mandarin itself. In Mandarin, there is no clear demarcation between word formation and syntax. The negative b�, for example, is sometimes used by native speakers as a prefix similar to that of the English �-un�, and at other times as an independent word, a free morpheme. I�m thinking of course of expressions such as b�fă �illegal�, b�t�ngde �different� (= unlike), b� tōng �not make sense�, b� q� �not go�. A noun or adjective is often the same in form as a clause: kānm�nde �doorman� is totally identical to kān m�n de, which I suppose must be glossed as �(the one) who watches the door�. Other areas are vastly more nettlesome to study. Verbs such as shīx�n �break a promise�, surely, are single units? However, in a very similar combinatorial method to that of separable verb formation in German, elements can intercede the two syllables, obviously making them appear less and less as a single unit: shīguo-xin le �broke a promise�. Or, rather more obviously perhaps, Tā yĭjīng shīguo liăng-c� x�n le, �He�s broken his word twice already�.

[Dr.J]

This is very interesting. I hope I'm not responding to a cut-and-paste from someone's dissertation!

Most people can appreciate the difficulty in ascertaining exactly what a "word" is and therefore how many we "know" is not clear. If you want to get really philosophical, you might try considering that it is strange that we use the concept of "words" at all. Words are embedded in context - the word "friend" can't "stand alone" any more than a roof can stand without walls.

Words are also tools. We say something, and there is some result. We do not necessarily make any conscious connection between a word and what it is supposed to refer to. Perhaps that's why the Chinese have nothing that corresponds to the English "word" - they don't need it.

However I think what is at the root of the question is a desire to know at what point a learner can achieve relative lexical independence ie. when they don't have to use a dictionary every day.

A simple answer might be, how many words are in the dictionary? Native speakers don't need to use a dictionary more than a few times a year, if that. So as a rule of thumb, that's the kind of number someone learning English should be aiming for.

[arioch36]

[Ludwig]

With all due respect, the phenomena of bilingualism is perhaps more the norm than the exception when viewed on a global scale (this of cause never ceases to amaze; though the reasons for this amazement are not clear). I suggest you refer to some basic undergraduate-level introductory texts to the subject. I would recommend:

Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with two languages: an introduction to bilingualism. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

And for some essential provisos on this position (as to what, exactly, is meant by being �bilingual�), cf. e.g.:

Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.

(If you want references to somewhat more advanced introductions to the area I can supply them. Bilingualism was a module that was part of my MA in Language Acquisition. It�s actually a very challenging area; both empirically and theoretically.)

Your reference to �Chinese� (which, presumably for you has some Platonic Essence somewhere) is, I think, perhaps the cause of your problem.

Whilst it may have suited the powers that be in Beijing to claim that there was one, common language, this does not mean that there is any linguistic justification for this claim. (I�d be interested to know from where the �98%-on-the-dot� figure was plucked, and even more interested as to how, exactly, even if it were true, it would be in any shape or form germane. I�d be even more interested again as to how the place of my residence would enter into the equation, unless, of course, you are claiming that merely by living within certain borders one magically transforms into a linguist with a speciality in that area. Or, perhaps, you are suggesting that your personal, accidental experience with its obvious boundary conditions, confers expertise upon you.)

The fact that you state that �x� percentage of people speak �Chinese�, despite the fact that many, many wholly distinct languages are recognised by linguists (Wu with an estimated 80,750,000 speakers, Gan with an estimated 22,800,000, Xiang with an estimated 45,600,000, Yue with an estimated 47,500,000), hints at this.

What I think you perhaps have in mind is fundamentally the written language. To illustrate some quite radical differences in spoken �Chinese� I suggest you merely consider, say, how the perfective grammatical marker is realised in various areas around China. In Beijing it is �-le�, in Gungdong it�s often �-tso� (as it is in Cantonese), in Min (Fuzhou) it�s �o�, in Hakka it�s �-e�, and in Wu (Shanghai) it�s actually achieved through reduplication. That�s just an isolated example; I could list many more that spring straight to mind.

Note that it�s nothing more than morphological (and occasionally syntactic and morphosyntactic) differences such as these that are said to make, for example, �Italian� and �Spanish� �different� �languages�. As noted by the specialist Ramsey (1987:7), from �a linguistic point of view, the Chinese �dialects� could be considered different languages, just as French and Italian are.� Chomsky (2000:115) concurs, remarking that �the fact that Chinese is the language of Beijing and Hong Kong, though Romance is not the language of Bucharest and Rio de Janeiro [is] a result of such factors as the stability of empires� and thus (p.158) �determined by such matters as colors on maps and the like.�

The Ramsey reference is:

Ramsey, S. R. (1987) The languages of China. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

And the Chomsky one is:

Chomsky, N. (2000) New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

(Interestingly, Ramsey, cites a figure of 71.5% percent of the Chinese population as being 'speakers' of �Mandarin�. I just wonder which of you two has conducted the most exhaustive research.)

[khmerhit]

O my God, thats's totally awesome, dude. You sure know your stuff, Ludvig. I'm like impressed you know? You can really connect the dots!

That's my vocab workout for today.

[arioch36]

You definitely talk like an academic wannabe. I am afraid some of your english is a little to advanced for me, as my english is probably to simple for you.

You said

[kev7161]

One of my Chinese students once asked me how many English words I know and I said, "All of them!" He smiled and walked away. I'm sure he was awe-struck!

[mjed9]

I have come across a few of my taiwanese friends who use 不 on its own .. but I think this more out of convenience and laziness

[Roger]

Interesting debate, but a bit too academic; to me, Chinese are monolingual, not bilingual. Diglossia is not bilingualism - they don't have to struggle to acquire a new grammar and syntax rules and vocabulary when they "study" another Chinese dialect. There are no important differences between Cantonese and Mandarin APART FROM INTONATION AND PRONUNCIATION. Sure, the two sound utterly different from one another, but when written they are virtually identical.
Still, some people do consider a significant number of Chinese to be "bilingual or multilingual"; by the same token, a Britisher would also be "multilingual" since he no doubt understands the Queen's English, Cockney, Scottish English and a host of other varieties.

[Atlas]

*
Roger,
no flies on you! you da man.

[Ludwig]

'Roger', You write that "the two [Mandarin and Cantonese] sound utterly different from one another, but when written they are virtually identical."

With all due respect, (and I do not know if this comment of yours is in any way serious), but if you really want to examine some of the (vast) differences between the two examples you cite then you will have to be somewhat clearer than "utterly different".

I would also point out that there are some not insignificant differences between complex and simplified Chinese characters. It is not clear what you could possibly mean by "virtually identical" on this score. Where, exactly, along your continuum does "virtually identical" become "identical" and, in a reverse direction, where along this continuum would "virtually identical" become, (presumably), "not quite so virtually identical"?

What I CAN say however is that if this is your argument FOR the two NOT being separate languages then this is somewhat odd to say the very least. And, with respect, I think perhaps that you are guilty of not having thought about this enough.

After all, and as way of example, Afrikaans and English "sound utterly different from one another" (though as I state it is far from clear what, exactly, you mean by this).

Shall we, then, say that they are NOT separate, distinct languages? For even though they are clearly not mutually intelligible when spoken, when written down they can sometimes be not so much "virtually identical" as, well, simply identical:

1) My pen is in my hand.

Example (1) could be either Afrikaans or English.

(Again, this is but an isolated example. Nevertheless, I could supply more if so required.)

So, in concert with your logic, an Englishman who can converse in Afrikaans is NOT bilingual since, (through nothing other than historical accident), some of the language is written in an identical fashion to that of English (which is also written as it is through nothing more than historical accident). This is most odd indeed.

So, - and to push your point a tad further so as to iilustrate my point, - if, say, as from the coming Monday, English and Japanese were begun to be written in the same system and following the same conventions, then any previous (bilingual) speakers would cease to hold this status.

Indeed, Japanese and Chinese do indeed employ a script that is "virtually identical" (early Japanese scholars 'borrowed' the Chinese script system from visiting Chinese scholars as they were so impressed, as I am sure you are aware). So, since both are "virtually identical" when written and since both sound "utterly different" when spoken, they are, following the logic that to one observer keeps you free of flies, one and the same language, or, at best, dialects. This is really quite a strange thought indeed and it is a far from simple task to see how you could ever possibly defend this stance.

Alternatively, consider, say, English and Swahili. Both are written with a Roman script and so employ the same �shapes� (read: letters) in their orthography and thus appear �virtually identical� (especially to a lay outsider). After all, surely the letters are merely arranged in different orders? In addition, both sound �utterly different to one another� when spoken. Since this example satisfies both of your criteria shall we then conclude that the two are but one and the same, and that, in addition, anyone able to speak both is not bilingual?

It is of interest that you write that "by the same token", viz., if the two [Mandarin and Cantonese] were to be so considered, then "a Britisher [sic] would also be "multilingual"...".

Alternatively one could say - following your logic - that since there are greater differences between �Mandarin� and �Cantonese� from a linguistic point of view than there are between, say, French and Italian, then these two latter languages must be considered as one.

May I also remind you that simply stating (as fact) that the �Chinese are monolingual, not bilingual�, or that (presumably, the Chinese) �don't have to struggle to acquire a new grammar and syntax rules and vocabulary when they "study" another Chinese dialect�, (in other words, the very points you would presumably wish to argue) does not make it so. Each of those points would have to be heavily justified � and proven through detailed analysis; not merely asserted as a 'self-evident fact�, that, in fact, is itself actually the total of your conclusion.

In fact I gave quite a candid example above of the extent to which the grammars of Mandarin and Cantonese differ, namely, in this instance, the perfective marker. As stated, I could give many, many more if required; from phonetics, phonology, morphology (though not many as both are primarily isolating languages), and syntax (an area in which examples are abound). Although it would indeed take some work, I could if forced also give examples from areas of Chinese linguistics that may not be quite so well-known to westerners, such as, for example, co-verbs.

[arioch36]

[Atlas]

Roger wrote:

[once again]

"Native speakers don't need to use a dictionary more than a few times a year, if that. " If this is true then all it means is that those people are not reading widely enough. Quite tragic really.

[Roger]

Ludvig,

"My pen is in my hand" is English, not Afrikaans. I don't remember how they say Ppen" in Afrikaans; I could look it up in my Dutch dictionary; but the possessive adjectives in your example are pure English. Also, the plural of "hand" in Afrikaans would be different from its English counterpart.
As you said, there are examples where there is a baffling coincidence of sound and semantics, but these surely are isolated exceptions. I lived long enough in the RSA, and am still unable to understand spoken Afrikaans.

But your claim that Italian and French are but two variants of the same language is unbelievable. The grammar of French and its 30% of vocabulary of Germanic origin explain this. Spanish and Italian are much closer, yes; dialects? I don't know.

As for your Chinese examples, you have drifted into comparing SCRIPTS, not comparing the language varieties. We all know they use traditional characters in HK and Taiwan; many mainlanders are stumped when they are faced with those characters, and many Hongkongers can't read mainland Chinese texts without some special effort. But that does not make the language on one side of the border different from the other side.
I am aware that some phrases and colloquialisms differ too; still, I maintain grammar is so rudimentary in Chinese and thus, there are no significant differences between regional varieties. We may, of course, be faced with a huge difference between spoken Chinese and written Chinese; the Cantonese are infamous for their florid, potentially politically-incorrect speech.

And you err again in your comparison of Chinese and Japanese; these two languages definitely are not related. As far as I know, Japanese is inflectional, and its grammar is a lot more complex.

I have little doubt that oral Chinese differs enormously from region to region, and one major reason - in my view - is that the ordinary Chinese person is not literate enough to read academically challenging, standardised Chinese. I guess they would be lost even trying to read a novel by Lu Xun - because no one masters enough Chinese characters and understands the subtleties of literary work. I have repeatedly asked students about this, and I often hear "I can read maybe 5000 characters" or "3000"...
These students are the privileged ones who are given a chance at a foreign tongue. Some of them are 19 years old.