Chinese language or dialects - a constructivist approach to linguistic realities

Comm760: Social Constructions of Reality Adrian Lin
1
Chinese Dialects or Languages?
A Constructivist Approach to Linguistic Realities
Comm760
Adrian Lin
Professor Klaus Krippendorff

2
Abstract:
Linguistics, as the science of language, often creates classifications with criteria based on its
own criteria and standards. This institutionalized discourse community might therefore
not accurately represent the world as it purports to do because of the particular self‐
regulating ways of thinking that confines it to exclude certain standards that come from
within the studied group, which must admittedly be included if any comprehensive view of
the reality of languages and dialects in the world. This paper seeks to allow greater
inclusion of the oft‐ignored subjects of linguistic studies to show the narratives, accounts
and other social constructed criteria with which they describe themselves.

3
Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION: NOTIONS OF LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS 4
INCOMPATIBILITY OF LINGUISTIC DIVISIONS OF LANGUAGE WITH SOCIAL REALITY 5
LINGUISTICS AS IMPOSING A FALSE OBJECTIVITY IN DESCRIBING REALITY 7
CHINESE FĀNGYÁN: AUTOCHTHONOUS VIEWS ON CHINESE VARIETIES 11
SURVEY: 12
JUSTIFICATIONS AND DISCOURSES OF SPOKEN LANGUAGE WITHIN CHINA: 13
ARGUMENT FROM GEOPOLITICS: 13
ARGUMENT FROM SOCIAL VALUES AND UNITY: 14
ARGUMENT FROM SIMILITUDE: 16
ARGUMENT FROM THE SHARED WRITING SYSTEM: 17
ON THE SURVEY LIMITATIONS: 18
CONCLUSIONS: 19
REFERENCES: 21
APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS 22
APPENDIX B: SURVEY RESULTS 23
APPENDIX B2: CONTINUED SURVEY RESULTS 32

4
Introduction: Notions of languages and dialects
Broadly speaking, there exist two methods of understanding what constitutes
languages and dialects. The first is commonly employed by the field of Linguistics1 and
scientifically uses the criterion of mutual intelligibility to organize speech varieties into
languages or dialects; dialects would, under this definition, be “mutually intelligible” with
the language it is said to branch off from.  Thus, all languages are judged by a single formal
and immutable criterion, and none of the plethora of social factors.

The other notion is actually built from an amalgamation of different societal factors
and notions, including political, historical, ethnic, and national understandings, which
together I shall term as the socially constructed understandings. These factors can each
constitute an independent understanding of languages and dialects but commonly work in
tandem in various social situations. They are often not fully compatible with each other, so
it may seem odd that I group them as one; however, I group them together not only
because they are even more commonly non‐coterminous with the linguistic definition but
also as they provide a greater outlet for the speakers of such languages and dialects to
describe their social reality, whereas the scientific, objectivist understanding espoused by
Linguistics often does not.


1 Due to the double meaning of the adjective “linguistic” as either pertaining to language, or pertaining to the
scientific study of language, I shall identify the latter meaning with capitalization.

5
Incompatibility of Linguistic divisions of language with social reality
Linguistics, being a scientific field, maintains and perpetuates itself within the a
specific discourse with its own assumptions and institutions, often conflicts in view with
those of lay people, those that its theories purport to describe and whose behaviors it tries
to model.  For example, Hindi and Urdu, which respectively have statuses as one of the
official languages in India and Pakistan are often called a single language by Linguistic
standards, contrary to Indians’ and Pakistanis’ political understandings and identities,
suggesting more similarities than these peoples wish to believe. Conversely, speech
varieties in spoken by ethnic Han Chinese are Linguistically considered to be different
languages. However, most Han Chinese feel that they speak not different languages, but
various dialects.

Because Linguistics as a field has its own discursive practices and institutes itself,
Linguists from other cultures, in order to be accepted by the wider global Linguistics
community, have to conform to these standards to be taken seriously and considered part
of this discourse community. Mair (1991) echoes this Linguistic sentiment, although he
takes care to consider other non‐Linguistic viewpoints:

Unless the notion of dialect is somehow separated from politics, ethnicity, culture, and
other non‐linguistic factors, the classification of languages and peoples of China can never
be made fully compatible with work that is done for other parts of the world. (p. 13).

6
Indeed, Mair further mentions an example of Chinese Linguists’ reservations
between the two discourse communities to which they belong, that of Linguistics and other
being the wider Chinese community:

Chinese scholars have repeatedly and confidentially told me on many occasions that
Hanyu ‐‐ on purely linguistic grounds alone ‐‐ really ought to be considered as a group
(yuzu), but that there are “traditional”, “political”, “nationalistic” and other factors that
prevent them from declaring this publicly.” [boldening in original] (p. 10).

Mair concludes his paper saying that although current Linguistic terms are
incongruent with Chinese societal notions, this issue must be addressed “if Sino‐Tibetan
linguistics is ever to take its place on an equal footing with Indo‐European and other areas
of linguistic research,” and that the “best way to gain speedy respectability for our field is to
apply impartially the same standards that are used throughout the world for all other
languages” (p. 15).

Thus, it can be seen that the rigid Linguistic definition makes affords no room for
these individuals caught between the two institutionalized discourses that to them are very
real and undeniable realities.

The linguistic notion tries to remain objective by applying a single criterion
systematically to all speech varieties. However, as seen, it is possible that this method is not
without bias, due to Linguistics’ origins and historical association with one region of the
world and its cultural academic practices; through this shortcoming and the rejection of

7
popular understandings of language and dialects denies the very real reality that the
speakers of such “languages” and “dialects” themselves inhabit, and in no small part, help to
construct. Only in combination can these two notions truly describe the nature of the
various realities of different positions languages and dialects hold for the subjects these
notions describe.
Linguistics as imposing a false objectivity in describing reality

To understand the dangers of using solely the linguistic definition of languages and
dialects, one must first understand the history and development of modern Linguistics.
Modern Linguistics developed out of the discipline of Philology, which, unlike Linguistics,
emphasized history as well as literary studies. Modern Linguistics has since divorced itself
from these two aspects, having been influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure’s emphasis on
synchronic analysis and avoiding diachronic analysis. A problem with this is that cultural
and political notions that stem from historical roots such as identity, which are integral to
people’s lives are not considered. Had Linguistics remained more rooted in diachronic
analyses, the current field of Linguistics might have been more wholesome.

Blum (2005) quotes from Romaine illustrates this problem suggesting that the
metaphor of dividing up languages and dialects into distinct bounded regions could be a
cultural artifact, itself socially constructed out of the Western origins of modern Linguistics,
“fostered by processes such as literacy and standardization” (p. 136) and stemming from
the very political issues it strives to avoid. Thus, one might liken this view of its own

8
objectivity as a Stoltzenberg trap, because of the unquestioned axioms upon which is built
the belief that the classification of languages and dialects reflects a universal reality. This
view of social construction rather than inherent existence of languages and dialects is
supported by Nic Craith (2006), who asserts that “[l]anguage is a concept that is
increasingly recognised by political scientists and theorists as having been constructed in
the era of nation states – as an idea that is closely linked to the erection of national
boundaries” (106).

Blum (2005) suggests instead that different possible metaphors used by various
cultures, dividing the various cultural understandings of language into three categories:
The first, boundary contesting, is common in Europe, where national boundaries are
commonly coterminous with and often determined by language boundaries (134). This is
the more common of the metaphors of language and is the notion upon which Linguistics
bases its classification schemes. This metaphor often results in “othering” speakers in an
insider‐outsider relationship and a narrative of self‐evidency in clear‐cut boundaries.

This particular metaphor was, perhaps, an example of an imperfect manner of
understanding and representing the world which itself brought about the realization of the
notions it described. Languages had likely existed in continua merging seamlessly from
one area to the next without clear natural boundaries one could use to define an area as
having a preferred speech style. However, because of the standardization policies assumed
such a reality or at least ideal reality in which one area’s speech variety could be thought of
as standard and the rest, non‐standard in comparison, it eventually brought about the

9
actual manifestation of this idea by carving out boundaries from this metaphor and
conforming each language to the speech of an arbitrarily defined speech community,
roughly analogous and coterminous with the various nations of people in Europe. Indeed,
Nic Craith (2006) gives the example of Norway’s two standards of language: “Nyorsh, the
artificial standard, is somewhat different from Danish” but “the language commonly spoken
is remarkably similar,” and also quotes from McWhorter (2002), that ‘ “what is today
“Norwegian” was just “the way they speak Danish in Norway” until Norway broke with
Denmark in 1814’ (p. 24).

The second metaphor, boundary celebrating, is one in which linguistic differences
are exaggerated and, Blum quotes from Romaine (2000) in her example on Papua New
Guinea’s linguistic diversity, “has none of the pressures towards convergence found for a
long time in Europe and elsewhere, such as literacy, standardization, centralized
administrative control, schooling, media, was present to any degree in pre‐colonial days.”

Blum calls the third metaphor boundary shrugging, for which she uses the example
of Chinese language and nationalism, and which will also be the focus of this paper. She
draws examples from Chinese society to describe its boundary shrugging perspective for
the following reasons.

1. Linguistic difficulties are rarely mentioned in Chinese contexts where
familiarity with other (mostly Indo‐European) societies would lead one to
expect them: definitions of the nation, war, or political struggles.

10
  2.   Most attention in China has been paid to the written form of the language,
and most people are scarcely aware of the characteristics of speech. Though
there has been concern with literacy, it has not led to suppression of variation.

  3.   Many people acquire multiple varieties of language easily and often, leading to
a disposition that tolerates rather than rebuffs linguistic differences. (p. 136‐137).

These two other means of understanding the social phenomenon of language
suggest that the imposition of a single one may not adequately encapsulate the social
realities that speakers know. A pure linguistic definition of languages and dialects still
favours a particular standpoint or perspective, and therefore is perhaps less suitable in
describing other cultures’ social reality of languages.

11
Chinese Fāngyán:
Autochthonous views on Chinese varieties

In this paper, I2 will explore the more popular understanding of spoken language in
China on the speakers’ own terms, pointing out how social reality is constructed and
maintained. This is in contrast to the common Linguistic practice to impose its criterion of
mutual intelligibility, reducing its studied subjects to silent observers in their classification
and without acknowledging their views and realities, resulting in an i‐other relationship.

To start off, I should describe the term 方言 (fāngyán) as it is understood in China.
Literally, it means regionspeech, indicating a speech of a region. Mair (1991) discusses the
evolution of the term fāngyán, mentioning that earlier definitions “stressed crudity or non‐
standardness of its exemplars” (p. 4), but nowadays is understood with a variety of
definitions, although most emphasize shared linguistic history and the speakers’ shared
method of written communication, which Linguistics does not see as justifiable factors.
Nevertheless, the described speech varieties are invariably coterminous with what
Linguistics currently calls the Chinese languages as well as the dialects of those languages.
Mair attributes much of the confusion to the habit of translating fāngyán as dialects and
proposes the neutral term topolect and stresses that this term be applied in lieu of dialect
to syncretize the differing views.

2 At this point, I will discontinue the sole use of the impersonal passive in reporting my findings so as not to
conform to the institutional practice of supposed objectivism by denying the possible influence my
background in Linguistics may have on my analysis.

12
Survey:

To study the Chinese views on the linguistic diversity in our country, I created a
survey (see Appendix A), for which I gathered responses from 26, mostly college student
respondents. I interviewed a combination of Han Chinese, White Caucasians, and Non‐Han
East Asians from various countries, as well as a variety of non‐Linguists, Linguists, and
people with knowledge of Linguistics. I believed this would broaden the viewpoints I would
be exposed to and therefore allow me to more clearly understand the various narratives
and discourses from the realities the respondents inhabited.

Because of my background in Linguistics and my prior deference to the Linguistics
definition to the exclusion of the common cultural definition, I administered the survey via
the Internet to allow them to fully express themselves on their own time and their own
terms without unconsciously applying pressure by my mere presence. Moreover, other
than the first question,

1) What would you describe 方言 (eg. Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese/Minnan,
Hakka etc) in English?

which had respondents select either language, dialect, or other (please specify),  I used
mostly open‐ended questions that asked views and opinions so as to give the most leeway
to respondents and understand their views on their terms. Finally, I included a final
question that I predicted would be applicable to many of my respondents, question 5,

13
5) If you answered dialects as the best translation of 方言, please answer the following
question; If you didn't please type "SKIP":

Speakers of certain European languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian can
understand each other somewhat through the spoken and written language. The
speakers of different 方言, however, often cannot understand each other through the
spoken language at all. How would you justify the common classification of these
European languages as languages and but 方言 as dialects?

to try and understand how respondents understand views that may contradict theirs, and
how or if subjects to Linguistic theories may themselves shape these theories through
social negotiation.

Justifications and discourses of spoken language within China:

The results and my analysis confirm that people have many justifications of what
constitutes languages and dialectal classifications, and certain sets of these justifications
correspond with certain types of people, namely Linguist and non‐Linguist.

Argument from geopolitics:
The Linguists and the non‐Han in the survey, tended to stress mutual intelligibility
as a criterion for their choice to call Chinese variants languages or dialects without
mentioning politics as a valid criterion. At least one or two did suggest dialects being

14
“labeled so out of artificial political reasons” thus mostly downplaying agency to the
common Chinese speaker.

Han Chinese respondents seemed to view geopolitics as an important factor in
determining fāngyán. They commonly stressed that languages are “official” while dialects
are not, with one respondent calling regional boundaries the most important factor. While
at first this seems to align with the previously mentioned respondent’s belief in a top‐down
sanctioned official‐ness of certain speech variants as languages, many Han Chinese have
seemed to take agency in negotiating ownership of and internalizing this belief. At least one
respondent (#18) exhibited knowledge of the opposing view of official sanctioning of
terminology but calling out the flip‐side that European nations themselves may have
artificially emphasized differences for political reasons and even mused that it could be
argued the various languages of southern Europe should be “re‐classified as dialects of
Latin,” although also suggesting that one might not want to be so quick to “judge by the
benchmark of European languages.” Verily, as Kurpaska (2010) succinctly puts, “[c]alling
the varieties of Chinese ‘dialects’… rather than languages does have a strong political
undertone, as it serves the unity of the Chinese people,” and can even “interfere in the
sense of ethnic identity.” (p. 2‐3).

Argument from social values and unity:
Many also recognized an aspect of national unity associated with a language, calling
dialects variants of the language that branched off of the main language. Moreover, the
ethnic diversity and size of China was also mentioned, and used as a justification for an

15
official language, lest the country “break into warring states”. Indeed, some called fāngyán
the speech of a “specific group of people” and something “regional”. While this has been
shown to not be true in the case of spoken Chinese (Mandarin, the official language is
historically younger and derived from some older dialects), this narrative of shared origins
is common among Han Chinese, as is the narrative of national unity through shared
language, which was validated by the account of the period of history without a common
language that saw China broken into numerous factions. For Han Chinese this factor
seemed to align with Blum’s boundary‐contesting metaphor, although this itself might be
an artifact of my questions calling attention to the different usages of the English terms
dialect when applied to Spoken Chinese.

Furthermore, some Han Chinese respondents mentioned that they may call these
Chinese variants as dialects partially because of habit or social desirability and because
“that’s how they are commonly referred to by speakers and non‐speakers alike”. Some non‐
Chinese respondents said they may call it such so as not to offend Han Chinese, thus
dialogically negotiating their behavior under influences from both the discourse of their
Western notions and contact with Chinese discourses of language.

Finally, as the agenda of presenting unity of a country through a shared language is
one common way of understanding, one might expect individuals with a pro‐Taiwanese
independence agenda and who speak Taiwanese, which is a variant not mutually intelligible
with Mandarin, the official language in China, to possibly prefer the term languages. While
Blum (2005) mentions Taiwan as the “only part of China … in which one can currently find

16
activism on behalf of a linguistic variety” (p.139), respondent #24 who is Taiwanese and
pro‐independence did not call them dialects, while respondent #17 did, although in the
latter’s case, she had recently taken Ling001: Intro to Linguistics.

Argument from similitude:
One fundamental disagreement between Linguist and Han Chinese respondents was
the degree of similarity between varieties of Chinese. Linguists responded that most so‐
called “dialects” were not mutually intelligible, and even though many Chinese might not
consider this a factor in defining fāngyán, some seemed to know of this description but
nonetheless maintained that the differences were not so great. Indeed, some respondents
pointed out that fāngyán only have slightly different pronunciations and similar if not
identical grammatical systems. Similarly, variations exist even within languages, and
certainly within dialects in the orthodox Linguistic sense and in the various dialect
continua described by Linguistics, it is often hard to determine the boundaries that might
delineate a language, indeed Kurpaska (2010) explains that Standard Chinese both affects
and is affected by the non‐standard speech varieties (dialects) that exist in the region,
therefore blurring the boundaries between language and dialect (12).

That Linguists called them mutually unintelligible with different grammars and
pronunciations, the Chinese reaction was mostly the complete opposite. Hence we can infer
that the arbitrary criteria from which both sides might reify the phenomenon of Chinese
speech to justify the similitude necessary for each side’s argument; both use socially

17
constructed criteria that may or may not be grounded in an objective reality but perhaps a
socially constructed one.

Argument from the shared writing system:
Various linguists in the survey, and in the field of Linguistics refute the common
Chinese claim that all Chinese “dialects” are written the same, and indeed if we take the
written script to be a relatively faithful representation of formal speech, they would be
correct in asserting that because of grammatical and lexical differences, the written script
most closely represents Mandarin, the official language. However, if we were to contend
that all Chinese dialect speakers are in the habit of writing using a shared system and that
no dialects are formally written, literally this would be a correct statement according to
both sides and may also be a justification for common Chinese view on this matter.

The survey tended to reinforce these views with Linguists mentioning that without
the common writing system the speakers of different varieties of Chinese would not
understand each other, whereas Han Chinese respondents instead emphasized the
corollary—that all Chinese speakers understand each other through the shared written
standard. From a literal objectivist point of view, Han Chinese responses were, as
mentioned previously, technically incorrect if we take a writing system as belonging to a
language or dialect if its units such as letters (or logograms in the Chinese case) correspond
highly with the said language or dialect. But, as suggested before, it is possible that such
notions are not directly analogous in Chinese society; it is possible that to Chinese, the
writing system is the language and not the system of coding language and thus Linguistic

18
notions as a construct may be neither tangible nor applicable to the average Chinese
person. Indeed, Blum (2005) gives evidence of an example of cultural differences causing
respondents to not understand interviewer questions:

In interviews and conversations, students of minority background failed to understand
my question, Do you feel you lose anything of your own culture when you function
entirely in the majority language for your education? Incomprehension was consistent. (p. 150)

Blum infers from this that cultural metaphors of competition between varieties, which is
prevalent in European societies is not applicable to at least Chinese society. Similarly a
notion of a writing system as necessarily being a highly consistent representation of speech
may be a cultural artifact, as suggested by the differing viewpoints of my respondents.

On the survey limitations:
A concern, as briefly touched upon earlier is that this survey itself might be affecting
the results that it seeks. This is not only because of the nature of the medium which might
constrain possible responses, but also because of the nature of this paper that the results
inform and for which the survey was designed. Indeed, it is entirely possible that such a
discourse of this discussion on the linguistic diversity of China may have in being studied,
affected or created the results it sees—Chinese speakers might not ever even discuss such a
topic but for my survey forcing them to consider the realities they live in, albeit not with
the same manner that Linguistics may impose its definitions.

19
Conclusions:

The main problem in describing other cultures lies in the translation of certain
terms not only from one language to another but from one social environment or culture to
another. While terms in different languages have different definitions and entailments,
sometimes even a description of such terms will not suffice as the values inherent in these
definitions may be inherently valued differently in different societies so as to be rejected by
the other culture as a label imposed from the outside instead of something autochthonous.

While Linguistics, which has roots and influences from European culture, uses a
more uniform set of criteria that can be applied to all cultures, it still describes things in
terms of values that are less valued in other cultures, such as in China, where native views
of linguistic variety does not hold to the same degree of import, the issue of mutual
intelligibility, due to the presence of a society with a unified written communication form.
Conversely, the Linguistics community rejects this cultural notion as a reality if viewed
from its commonly objectivist point of view, although the idea that scripts need to
represent the spoken language may have roots in the standardization and boundary‐
contesting Western cultural narratives. Kurpaska (2010) succinctly summarizes this type
of practice saying that

[t]he question whether or not the lack of mutual intelligibility does determine the
linguistic borders goes beyond the domain of linguistics and enters the area of politics,
anthropology and history. The question touches also upon the feeling of ethnic identity

20
and linguistic ideology, which may, as in many cases in for example Europe, dominate the
controversies around linguistic diversification. This is why it is probably best to leave this
question aside. (p. 203).

Verily, what has been said here seems to be a recurring theme in the Constructivist
critiques of Positivism and the issues at stake are similar. As commonly said, it is important
to understand the viewpoint of the observer when considering the observation as they are
invariably colored by a lesser or greater degree by the lens of his or her viewpoint. Only
from multiple viewpoints, including the viewpoint of the observed can one truly come to
understand the complex nature of socially constructed reality.

21
References:

Blum, S. D. (2005). Nationalism without linguism: Tolerating Chinese variants. In W. M.
Bloomer (Ed.), The Contest of Language.  (134‐164). Indiana: University of Notre
Dame Press.

Kurpaska, M. (2006).  Chinese Language(s): A look through the prism of the great dictionary
of modern Chinese dialects V. Gast, (Ed.). Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.

Mair, V. H. (1991). What is a Chinese “dialect/topolect”?: Reflections on some key SinoEnglish
linguistic terms. Sino‐Platonic Papers, 1(29), 1‐29.

McWhorter, J. (2002). The Power of Babel: A natural history of language. London: William
Heinemann.

Nic Craith, M. (2006). Europe and the Politics of Language: Citizens, Migrants and Outsiders.
Great Britain: Antony Row Ltd, Chippenham and Eastbourne.

Romaine, S. (2000). Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

22
Appendix A: Survey Questions

1) What would you describe 方言 (eg. Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese/Minnan, Hakka
etc) in English?

2) For what reasons (eg. Social, Historical, Political, Scientific reasons etc) are you arguing that
they should be referred to as dialects or languages (or any other term)?

3) How likely are you to ever endorse or actively call them another/the other term? When?
Why?

4) What, to you, is the difference between languages and dialects?

5) If you answered dialects as the best translation of 方言, please answer the following
question; If you didn't please type "SKIP":

Speakers of certain European languages such as Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian can
understand each other somewhat through the spoken and written language. The speakers
of different 方言, however, often cannot understand each other through the spoken
language at all. How would you justify the common classification of these European
languages as languages and but 方言 as dialects?

23
Appendix B: Survey Results

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32
Appendix B2: Continued Survey Results

I put responses here from respondents whose answers were too long and unwieldy to
place in the table.

Respondent #25
Q1.
Dialects
Q2
The record and research of Chinese regional dialects (not social dialects) started as early as West Han
Dynasty, that was about two thousand of years ago. A great scholar named YANG Xiong collected
different pronunciations of the same word and different names of the same thing/object all over China.
From the point of contemporary people, the difference between the then dialects is as huge as that of two
modern languages. However, if the people at that time could not communicate, there must have had a
profession like interpreter or translator in modern times, but I did not see strong evidence that shows there
had been that profession in the history of China. Therefore, the difference between the dialects in the
early history of China might not as big as we imagined. One may argue that people at early history spoke
ya3yan2 (lit. elegant speech, like Received Pronunciation of English or Mandarin in Ming and Qing
Dynasties) when they communicated. This is true, but since there were no audio recording facilities, no
schools to determine the standards, who could set and maintain the standards? In brief, my point is
thoroughout the early history of China, the dialects were understandable to people of different regions.
They were never different languages.
Q3
Fangyan is clear and accurate enough. There is no need to adopt another term. People sometimes say
di4fang1hua4 (local dialect) instead.
Q4
Dialects are understandable to people from other places. You need not go to school to learn how to
understand a dialect. However, you must go to school to learn a different language.
Q5
People regard Portuguese and Spanish as different languages because they are spoken by people who live
in two countries. If they lived in the same country, the two languages could be regarded as one language.
The difference between Mandarin and Cantonese in the history was not as huge as that of nowadays. The
phonology of Beijing dialect was dramatically reduced after maybe the fourteen century because of the
Mongolian invasion. Before Yuan Dynasty, Beijing people and Cantonese people, I think, could
communicate through spoken language.

33
Respondent #26

Q1.

When faced with the discussion of regional languages in China, which I will cease referring to as
fangyan herein in order to ensure a neutral start to my approach, it is not something which can be so
quickly decided, nor something for which one term will suffice, reason being that the language situation
in China is a decidedly complex one. The so-called Zhongguoyuwen, or the languages (and writing
systems) in use by the plethora of groups living in China, is as diverse as the people by whom they are
used, if not more so.
If I have said that one term will not suffice, it is because the differences among different speech
communities, and their tongues, within China vary by differing degrees. In order to adopt a reasonable
approach to this question, it is necessary to apply some semblance of division to the amorphous mass that
is 'the languages spoken in China'. As the differentiation occurs on many different orders of magnitude, I
will employ a hierarchical dichotomy in my division.
Thus set out upon my course, the first major division that must be made is between languages
which are demonstrably related to Chinese in some real and generally accepted fashion and those which
are not. In creating this divide, we are left with what shall be briefly called the 'Chinese-like languages' or
'Sinoform languages', so as not to misuse an actual term, and the other languages. Languages in this latter
group include languages in other established families: the Indo-European Tajik (a language which is
established external to China) and Russian (a prominent national language), the a small band of Austro-
Asiatic languages of the (perhaps defunct) Mon Khmer variety (many of whose members are established
outside of China), Korean (a prominent national language) the Turkic languages (Uyghur, Kazakh, and
Kyrgyz), Mongolian, and a few Tungusic languages (the last three or four of these may all be grouped in
the proposed Altaic language family, though its existence and membership remains the subject of debate).
For many of these languages, it is manifest that they are not, nor should they be referred to as, dialects,
and none of them can, in good linguistic conscience, be called a dialect of 'Chinese'. Thus, the established
members at least must be referred to as languages (for there are certainly dialects which exist within these
aforementioned groups), and their status as independent of Chinese-like languages should not be ignored.
Before moving into the Chinese-like languages, there are a couple of fringe cases which must be
dealt with. First, there are the Hmong(-Mien) languages (or Miao-Yao). The relationship of this family
to other languages is still the subject of speculation, and there have been some who have attempted to
classify it with Chinese-like languages. The lack thus far of any strong evidence for this prompts us to
group it with the non Chinese langauges. A similar if not parallel case occurs with the Tai-Kradai family,
which has historically been considered a part of the Chinese-like languages, and we, again faced with
little convincing data to its inclusion therein, and thus shall exclude it.
Having dealt swiftly enough with the question of these external languages, and thus eliminating exterior,
but significant linguistic areas of China, the task becomes already a bit tricky. Within the Chinese-like
languages, a division must be made. Examining the tongues which remain, we see that we have the
languages spoken in Tibet and those spoken in the 'main' part of China, that is, the Eastern portion. For
the inclusion of these two groups, we shall follow suit of other linguists and rename these the 'Sino-
Tibetan languages'. In doing so, the division that is to follow becomes apparent: that of the Tibetan
languages and the 'Sinitic' (Chinese) languages. Again, the languages being separated are distant enough
from the core Sinitic group remaining that we must call them languages.
Following this, our divisive enterprise becomes even more difficult. Particularly, the languages
contained herein are very commonly heaped under the mantle of a 'Chinese language'. To start with the
easiest, we shall separate the Bai language(s), whose inclusion within the Sinitic group is largely
questionable. The distinctions between Bai and 'Chinese' are nonetheless sufficiently vast (well beyond
mutual intelligibility) to allow its inclusion (thus it is a language).

34
Within the remainder of the core group, the division has become increasingly difficult, insofar as we want
to create meaningful cladistic divisions. The next prominent division, however, is between the languages
which have developed from Middle Chinese (zhongguhanyu) and the so-called Min languages, which
split off beforehand. At the time of this split, we are starting to reach distinctions of the general level as
seen within the Germanic group of Indo-European languages. The Min group is demonstrably not
colinguistic with the Middle-Chinese-derived group, but what is to be mentioned here is that it contains
both languages and dialects. A passing glance reveals at least four or five distinct languages within the
group, which may themselves (Min Nan in particular) be actually groups of their own, containing several
distinct languages and dialects thereof. Thus, we reach a problem which will be discussed below: Min
contains several languages, which themselves may have prominent dialects.
But leaving this discussion aside for now, we are approaching the end of our in-depth analysis of the
languages autochthonous to the region occupied by the entity that is the People's Republic of China
((Note: Taiwan has been excluded for ease of grouping. No political point is being made or not being
made hereby)). That having been said, we are left dividing the group of Middle Chinese derivatives.
This group derives itself fairly easily into Guan, Wu, Yue, Xiang, and Gan. Each of these groups has
possibly distinct languages within it, and all are marked by wide variation. Further dissection would take
up an equally long description, but we are left knowing that at least anything at or above the ZGHY split
is a 'language' insofar as it is not possibly subsumed by or dialect to the standard variety of Mandarin
Chinese. In striving to use the most general term, we shall thus describe the fangyan as languages,
although the true nature of the vast number of speech paradigms in the territory of China is heavily
nested.

Q2.
I am arguing this, as explicitly detailed above, from a purely linguistic basis, which itself is based upon
mutual intelligibility and linguistic relation. A political division of languages can only feign validity.

Q3.
I suppose that depends on what endorse and actively mean. Will I create a grassroots campaign to
enlighten people about the linguistic differences in the monolith that is the term 'Chinese'? No. But will I
tell my friends a little bit about the distinction, both that between a language and a dialect and that
between Mandarin Chinese and some other 'dialects' spoken in China? Nine times out of ten.

Q4.
The difference between languages and dialects is a vast question, both which cannot be fully answered or
treated in its entirety in this small confine, and which is not so black-and-white a solution as to have a
singular and precise division. Rather, languages and dialects exist on a sort of continuum, which is
determined by mutual intelligibility, linguistic relation, commonality of vocabulary, and of grammatical
structures.
However, an important usage difference is that while language implies autonomy and status,
dialect implies subordination. For this reason, the appellation of a tongue as a 'dialect' carries with it the
submeaning that it is a splinter or minor split from a more established 'language'. In addition to the
politics of this type of master-slave dialectic to begin with, there is also the possible intentional misuse of
'dialect' to suggest derivation from a language of which the speech pattern in question is not a dialect.
Here, the description of any dialects existing in China (thus, 'Chinese dialects') carries with it the
presupposition that these dialects are dialects OF 'Chinese' (and not, say, dialects of Wu or of Hmong, or
whatever the case may be).

Q5.
SKIP.

Chinese language or dialects - a constructivist approach to linguistic realities

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Chinese language or dialects - a constructivist approach to linguistic realities

More from Adrian Lin

Recently uploaded

Chinese language or dialects - a constructivist approach to linguistic realities