I had a field day in Hong Kong where I played tourist for a few days months back. I was thinking of the wonderful HK movies I am going to see (which are quite limited when you are living in the Philippines).
Imagine my surprise when I flipped the remote control open. Almost every channel is in Cantonese!
Ack. I can not understand Cantonese. Subtitles are not even present. What do I expect? Majority of them are news channels, and news channels are catered locally. And the locals speak the dialect.
Putonghua or the common spoken Chinese language is estimated to be used by 53% of the country’s smacking 1.3 billion citizens. Yet more than 80% of the population are comfortable using their local dialects in everyday conversations (much like this writer).
The State Language Commission filed a policy that news programs not allowed to use dialects as this would limit their influence and supposedly not encourage the usage of a national language.
Simply put, how do you unite a nation with lots of dialects if not for a national language to learn and use?
Others debate, why the ban when Putonghua and dialects have existed in tandem for as long as anyone can remember?
On the lighter side, going back to Hong Kong, this is a story a friend heard about the history of Putonghua. According to him, Putonghua almost is not putonghua as we know it. Can anyone confirm this?
“When the Republic of China was formed in 1912 following the demise of the Qing Dynasty, Chinese leaders were debating in choosing a national language. They had two choice – Cantonese and Mandarin.
Dr. Sun Yat Sen, the founder of ROC, was a Cantonese. He leaned towards choosing his mother tongue. In the end, however, Mandarin won by one vote.
Just imagine, if one of the leader changed his mind during the voting, the national language of China would have been Cantonese.”
Well, quite a touchy issue but at least this is far from the subject of language misuse which is definitely another topic to talk about.
That’s the beauty of “one country, two systems”, it includes “one country, two dialects”
Doesn’t the “one country, two systems” concept pertains to the special administrative regions like HK and Macau? Not really the “one country, two dialects”.
hi,there. I am doing a chinese linguistics research, Do you make the first graphic above or got it from somewhere else? Will it be possible to sent me the orignal? that will be helpful, thx!
Baoru, this is a great post! Can you link to athe source of your diagrams, or if you made them yourself, then say that so people can link back to this post?
Elliott, thanks!
Unfortunately, I didn’t make them myself. Just searched for them online.
Ok, I’ll link to the source.
Not all news broadcasts in China are in Mandarin. In Canton (Guangdong province), the news are in Cantonese. But it may be the only province where audience can watch/listen to news in dialect.
In Shangha, there are a few TV programs in Shanghai dialect, but not the news.
(Speaking for the mainland China)Presently only news broadcasts through China’s central television stations (CCTV1-12) is in Mandarin/Putonghua. Each province has many other television stations of their own and news is often broadcasted in the local dialect from local stations. China officially recognises 56 different ethnic groups. The han is of course the largest group. Even the han population enjoys news in different dialect. You can definitely get news in Sichuanese, in Tibetan, in Mongolean, in Hunanese , in Cantonese etc…within China. In Hong Kong you can get news in both Cantonese and Putonghua , the latter from Pheonix tv (www.ifeng.com) You can get news at ‘very high levels’ the more educated/literate the population is. You can’t have very sophiscated or complext news if the level of cantonese/ hunanese most people can understand is limited.
Well I have been in China for at least 5 years and I haven’t seen any draconian measures to limit people hearing the news in their local dialect. I have been to many regions of China and if not on TV, i have heard radio stations broadcast the news in Shanghainese, or Cantonese in GuangXi. Here the people have many dialects and not only Cantonese.. Maybe I am missing a point here, when is this policy from the central govt suppose to take effect?
Anyway, the main point I want to make is Mandarin should be emphasized as a main channel of communicating higher and ever more sophisticated levels of news/ learning since this is the language people are taught to READ in schools. What you want to do in your own homes is your business. It is too late lamenting about the lost in importance of Cantonese. I come to this conclusion having seen many students in Hong Kong having to struggle with Cantonese as a reading and speaking language and Putonghua AND English is the language of earning a living. It is too much work to change even if it is just the pronouncing or sounds of the same Chinese characters. All the school teachers will have to be imported from China. Most teachers in Hong Kong cannot effectively teach in Putonghua! Unpopular unemployment will be created. Cantonese is also ‘just’ a spoken language and it follows the written grammar of Mandarin or Putonghua for writing purposes, so all in all it is actually ‘extra work’ for student to adopt Cantonese especially since the total population of Cantonese speakers is now less than one-tenth of the total population of China.
This has become a crackdown of sorts, but of course a lot have been opposing and questioning this policy. This isn’t really new. The State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (or the SARFT) has posted their own rules with regards to Mandarin usage in TV series:
1. Language in television series (excluding local traditional opera) should be mainly Mandarin. Under normal circumstances, dialects or non-standard Mandarin are not to be used.
2. Major revolutionary and historically-themed television series, children’s series, and series promoting educational content are to use Mandarin.
3. Leaders portrayed in television series are to use Mandarin.
This is very much open to debate, because some will counter–is there a pure Mandarin?
Singapore has their own dialect issues with some extremists referring to it as Lee Kuan Yew’s killing of dialects. This is better known as the “Speak Mandarin Campaign”.
A quotable quote from his speech at the 30th anniversary launch of the campaign:
“To effectively promote Mandarin, we closed down all dialect programs on radio and TV from 1979. Also, I was setting a bad example making speeches in Hokkien in the 1960s and ‘70s to reach the largest number of Chinese. From 1979, some 30 years ago, I decided to stop speaking in Hokkien and switched to Mandarin. Had I not done this, Hokkien/Teochew will be the predominant common language for the Chinese in Singapore, not Mandarin.”
For the entire speech: http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/mica/speech/S-20090317-1.html
Anyway, I am not for or against dialects just to clear my point. What I see as the purpose of this crackdown is utilitarian. Learn a common language to serve the greater economy of a country.
But then, I remember when I was in Cebu (in the Philippines), most of the people there speak Cebuano (one of the many languages of the Visayans–an ethnolinguistic group). As always, I can not speak the language (but my dad surely can!). You can say he got the better end of the service, because he connected with the locals very well.
I know Filipino fluently enough to get me around the country (utilitarian) but knowing Cebuano could have gotten things moving around quicker.
Certainly, having one common language helps in getting rid of differences and discrimination. But a complete eradication will deprive the older generation who has never learned Mandarin.
Just some things to think about.
PS. And yeah, I read about the Hong Kong students struggling with the three languages. If I know the language well enough, I am for functional trilingualism. Using it for the level needed.
Singapore is not much for functional trilinguilism. The last time I was there (2007) I had to use functional ‘multi-linguilism’: [ English+Hokkien+ Teochew+ Mandarin+malay word or two] in varying proportion depending what type of person or situation I was with!! It seems what LKY tried to eradicate or purify has not fully worked after all these years. But purity does not matter if everyone accepts people speaking the same way.
A lot of people stay for years in a place like Hong Kong and still cannot communicate in Cantonese or understand the news on TV. Ignorance can be so “isolating”. Old people in Hong Kong who only understand verbal Cantonese have to get their education through special radio programs, one of them has been running for years called Flat 18th floorC 十八楼 C (in Cantonese) on RTHK. But my biggest dream for China’s future is that most women including those from villages, can at least reach literacy equivalence of 10 years of Mandarin education in school (read and write a letter). It is really terrible to be illiterate and getting old. I remember a massage girl was telling me if she could read she would be a kAlaOK hostess – a step up. Her sichuan dialect was really getting her anywhere in life. Even at train stations you sometimes get people asking for directions, or which trains will leave when etc., because they can’t read the signs. Well I hope my dream comes true by 2020. (I think China will get there before India.)
“Shanghai” graduates speaking shanghainese, or Jiangsu, or dongbei etc… amongst themselves doesn’t really bother me. What annoys me is if their Mandarin is not good enough to explain all the problems they face at a work situation. In other places like Hong Kong or Singapore, failure to express in English means Cantonese or other will be a good backup but oops, that doesn’t seem to go too well here either..Another thing I heard was that the cultural revolution really dealt a big blow as well because what affected the parents affected the whole 80s generation but I don’t think I want to go into that..
Actually, from linguistic point of view, the so-called Southern dialects are distinctive languages.
On the other hand, the Northern Dialect, i.e. Mandarin, is not uniformly spoken throughout North China. In Shandong, the word for ‘four’ (四, si) is pronounced in second tone instead of fourth tone as in Beijing. The word for ‘ten’ (十, shi) is pronounced in fourth tone instead of second tone. Kinda confusing. I had to rely on hand language when bargaining there.
Oh yes, I also heard of the story about the national language vote in 1912.
Interesting. A regional context to consider. You’re right, it is kind of confusing. Accents differ place to place. What were you trying to bargain over there?
that was clearly not what happened at the conference in 1912… as far as i know it was not a question of whether choosing mandarin (by the way, what mandarin? beijing mandarin? nanjing?) or cantonese. rather, it was about keeping or not keeping the four tones of middle chinese, which are important for traditional poetry. in beijing mandarin, the so called entering tone of middle chinese had been lost since at least the ming dynasty, and the level tone of middle chinese had split into two, becoming the first and second tones of modern mandarin. and if i remember correctly, it was not beijing mandarin that was chosen as the standard at the conference in 1912, but a hybrid form which would later be abandoned and called 老国音. the reason it had to be abandoned was that it did not represent the speech of anyone and was a completely artificial construct. i think yuen ren chao, who made the sound recordings of the new standard, claimed to be the only speaker of the new national pronunciation…
Hi,
First, wanted to say it was great to run into this intelligent site where this lao wei can get a rich taste of Chinese thought along my “Long March” to learn Mandarin, as well as a great cross-section reflecting on the interaction of cultures here and abroad. Thanks!
As far as the topic, I think in every country there is a fine balance between respecting linguistic diversity and also unification. Indeed, sufficient respect for diversity is no doubt a prerequisite toward successful unification, even as there must be gradual progress toward wider use of a common language.
But one issue which I think merits more attention in our increasingly inter-dependent and globalizing world, and which cannot be adequately addressed by local solutions (though of course there will continue to be a need for balancing local and national as well as international languages), is our need for a common world language.
The predominant discussions about this topic seem to boil down to “pro-Esperantist” ideas (shijie yu) who maintain that only a constructed language can bring cultural neutrality, fairness, ease of learning, etc. (though they struggle with the fact that they are not having much success in their current approach), and on the other hand the “English-already-is-the-world-language” camp which, while bearing a certain degree of truth, sometimes proudly assumes everyone should be speaking English even in non-English speaking countries (no democratic decision there), and also ignores the fact that English is by no means universally taught around the world, especially at the younger ages needed to really acquire it (Latin America mostly teaches Spanish as a lingua franca, whereas in Africa, French and Arabic hold sway in many countries, Russian in former Soviet states, etc.). If English really already was a world language, how come immigrants to their countries do not speak it?
I believe the only solution, as with any good standardization process, is to bring the issue to a representative vote (a global meeting, in this case), and bring in all relevant parties–scholars in linguistics, the social sciences, etc. If English is really as popular as its advocates believe, it should have no problem winning out in an election. And if not, we better get started instructing in whatever language can gain support to be taught in schools around the world, or we will never find a sustainable solution to this problem, and there will be more work in the future to translate our ongoing works into this language.
Despite the unfortunate ratio of heat-to-light in some of the comments on inter-cultural sites such as this, I believe in the end, we learn a lot from one another, and gain understanding and respect for others. Imagine if we could get our governments to come together to provide a foundation of understanding for everyone in our countries, so they may at least drop some of their ignorance about each other.
China may already be teaching English, but if there is no fixed movement to agree upon this around the world, English won’t be able to fulfill its role some Chinese desire for it as a world language which they are already learning, and thus Chinese trade and relations will continue to suffer as well, as Chinese (and others) must toil in learning Spanish, French, German, Japanese, etc., spending ultimately fruitless money in translation and adult learning which would more ideally be used in focusing on a single common world language (if people want to learn these national languages as well out of interest in the culture or to live there, fine, but there should only be one world language).
If a European Union can be formed, despite the countries having been at war with each other just a few decades back, if the mightiest nations can willingly submit itself to the higher authority of a World Trade Organization and increasingly other international systems, hopefully it should be increasingly transparent that such an idea of an officially chosen world auxiliary language is not a utopian dream, but an eventual inevitability–one which depends on how much vision and effort we put into it. Everyone pays lip service to the idea that the world is a family, but if you take it seriously (without being ignorant of the challenges), you see that the approach has to go beyond our traditional controversies and piece-meal solutions.
I really challenge anyone to think of any single idea which would have greater positive repercussions for the world, and which is as comparatively speaking, controversy-free, as this one. The idea is not to replace languages, but to agree on a common world language, even as people continue to study their own national and/or local languages.
While I hope this won’t be seen as off-topic, I really think it is worth discussing because I think parallels can be found (going at it from the other side, I like to use putonghua as an example of how a higher language can indeed be legislated and bring greater integration, despite the continuing challenges). A harmonious linguistic integration–which does not recklessly trample on diversity (including in the democratic process for the involved parties to have a say on the standardization itself)–is an admirable goal, whether at the local, national, or international level.
Hi there!
I understand where you are getting at. It is rather an elitist way of thinking assuming everyone knows English (when the United Nations has chosen several other languages as official languages–and Chinese or Putonghua is included!)
About your point–I don’t think there are “fruitless” translations abound. The goal of translating is to reach as many people as possible. Having a “common” world language where everyone speaks the same tongue, I believe, may raise the elitism to a whole new level. People would think there are “better” languages then their own lingua franca. Though increasing one’s knowledge of other languages could foster close human relationships. Some people actually feel closer to people who slew the same words or expressions as they are.
Hello Baoru,
My meaning was not that translations were fruitless–I am so grateful to run into sites such as this one and others which open our eyes to what others in the world are thinking and expressing, especially since we don’t have a common language yet! My meaning was that, if, for example, China did not have putonghua, you’d either have a lack of communication, or an excessive need for translations between one dialect and another (if someone wants to translate something into a local dialect, that’s fine (and of course they should have the right to express things in their own local dialect), but my point is that things should be arranged so that it is not strictly necessary to have to translate everything into local dialects if everyone can share a common medium). But since the government of China has wisely chosen a common language, there is a common basis of communication in at least most situations.
You said, “People would think there are “better” languages then their own lingua franca.” By “lingua franca”, I mean a language which is meant to be a bridge language, like putonghua for China. What would be the advantage of multiple putonghuas? So why should there be multiple world languages? By “world languages” I mean languages meant to be used for generic international communication, not that people should give up their languages.
If we agree translation is beneficial, isn’t it even better not to need translation at all? Wouldn’t it be easier on Chinese, for example, to just need to learn their local dialect (if they have one different from Mandarin), learn Mandarin, and learn a world language? They could learn more languages if they wished, but wouldn’t it be convenient for them if wherever they went, people at least spoke the “world language”? And likewise for us non-Chinese to just learn our language(s) and the single world language?
As far as people thinking a common language is better, does putonghua make people in China think putonghua is better than say, “Henan hua”?
Actually, while it seems to me that it may a little (some of my Chinese relatives seem kind of embarrassed by their Henan-hua, even though I find it interesting and linguists will never say one dialect is categorically superior to another, except for social reasons), I think it is inevitable that if you are going to unite a people, that you have to settle on one common language (unless the political situation makes it impossible–like how in India they have more than one official language). Don’t you think it would be troublesome if everywhere in China, signs all had to be posted in say Mandarin, Yueyu, Tibetan, etc.? The will of the majority eventually has to rule, standards have to simplify some diversity, even as they must allow some flexibility for its language minorities.
I assume you accept the right and need of nations to unite themselves with a common language–because they are one people, right? Surely no one in China wants to go back to the time of adjacent villages having no common means of communication! Maybe these people didn’t think of themselves historically as one people (and that’s why they didn’t agree on a common language), but it is a given that for progress and better expression of our collective potential, that we wish to unite together in larger circles–circles which do not deprive us of diversity but allow better expression of that diversity–for what is the advantage of diversity if it cannot be enjoyed or utilized in a wider context?
The central question I think is whether one thinks the world is or at least should be as one family. If you agree with this, then does it not make sense to extend the circle further? I know I love all races in this world, and believing as I do that we are one people, I want a common language for all of us–not to impose it by force, but to come to democratic consensus to have it be taught in schools around the world.
While there will be some inevitable arguments that choosing a language like English will be unfair (and that’s why the world should be free to choose a constructed language like Esperanto in a global democratic meeting if it wished, since such languages might be less culturally based, easier to learn for everyone, etc.), ultimately, for whatever language can get agreement (including possibly English), future generations at least will all be able to express their ideas in whatever language is learned.
To the extent of my abilities, I can express my thought in Chinese, and I can appreciate the thought of others here whose native language may not be English–just because I use Chinese does not mean I cannot express my culture in Chinese (even if I will inevitably be more comfortable for a while using my own native language).
If there were a common world language, it would not need to lead to people thinking there language was any less than others, at least any more than it already does. Since English already functions as a kind of imperfect world language, there already is such a situation–but since the world hasn’t committed to it fully, many are left with an imperfect knowledge of it. Wouldn’t it be better to settle definitively on one language (whether English or another which could get enough agreement) so that future generations are not left with a feeling of inadequacy, as they fail to learn a common international language at an early age?
Whatever language may be chosen, does not mean we should feel inferior about our own language, even if eventually, it means humanity will drop its mutually unintelligible dialects. Language has changed and will change, and there’s no reason we have to feel sad that no one is speaking “Old English” anymore (except perhaps for some hobbyists), as long as there is the historical record.
Language is just a tool, even though we may enjoy our own language, we should not feel there is anything so fixed and permanent about it, that it is somehow superior to human thought. On the contrary, while our thought may be influenced to some degree by our language (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism ), it is overwhelmingly seen as unscientific and even racist to believe that language shapes our thinking so strongly that we can only understand concepts in our own language. Human beings are flexible enough to express their own cultural experiences into whatever language they wish.
But that being said, a world language does not mean that people need to give up their own local or national language–they may even be able to study their own languages more deeply if they don’t have to struggle with learning multiple world lingua francas (like English, French, etc.).
So many points, Brett! Thanks for your time in expressing your thoughts in my post.
“By ‘world languages’ I mean languages meant to be used for generic international communication, not that people should give up their languages.”
I guess we can sort of say that English is unofficially the bridge language as it is spoken by many countries and is considered as a second language by others.
“Wouldn’t it be easier on Chinese, for example, to just need to learn their local dialect (if they have one different from Mandarin), learn Mandarin…?”
Is this not the goal? In Singapore, they have the “Speak Mandarin: Mandarin is cool” campaign. Though in their case, some have seen this as LKY’s killing of dialects. But that is another story.
“I assume you accept the right and need of nations to unite themselves with a common language–because they are one people, right?”
Yes, of course!
But the problem with the one-world-common-language is that even it is not intended to superimpose the other major languages, it may come out that way. Like money currency or religion. (But then religion is a touchy subject, so let’s not get into that.)
There have been suggestions to go into a global common currency as to prevent any further damage due to the recession. But some are against it because–it would not make the country individually sovereign, and there is the conspiracy theory of allowing a small group of people to control a huge chunk of the economy–which can not benefit those outside that small group group. It’s like a dictatorship.
Those are just for illustration purposes. Anyway, going back to the topic, I think it would come off better if we make an effort to learn bits and pieces of a people’s culture instead–making it the other way around and not “superimposing” an official global language for them to use. That would be more considerate.
And it would not hurt to learn other foreign languages also. Not know it fluently but at least have enough knowledge to communicate the basic needs.
It’s a bonus already if you can really get down with the locals. That would be a better world for everyone. And then the local council will try to adapt and be educated in the foreigner’s language and culture–for survival’s sake also.
I think it is enough that English is taught as a second language in some places. We might consider learning a third or fourth language–but of course this is up to the individual already.
Back to my early comment–because it is a rather elitist way of thinking to assume everyone can speak English. We should always give way.
Hello Baoru,
Nice to have your engagement in the discussion–hopefully I’m not talking too much here… :)
As far as a world currency, I fully support a world currency, and I am grateful China has raised the issue on the world stage, even if we are sadly still quite a ways away from having one. While excessive centralization must indeed be avoided–and control needs to be distributed as might take place under the likes of the IMF, the lack of a common currency is harming poorer nations already, not the other way around.
Sovereignty is the last retreat of tyrants, criminals, and partisans. Should a man’s home be sovereign, even if he is ruthlessly beating his wife? Should a nation be free to kill minorities inside of it because they are sovereign? Should a nation be able to wreak financial havok among other nations without accountability? Sovereignty, in its extreme form, is an outdated concept, suitable perhaps in earlier ages where imperialism reigned, but which has to give way in this new age of human development.
While not failing to recognize the important need for a certain degree of local and national autonomy, extreme sovereignty has been the cause of ineffectualness in the United Nations, as it was in various nations’ histories (e.g., the Articles of Confederation in the U.S.). Even the nations (such as the U.S. and China) which, due to their being the victors of the war which shaped the U.N., have an excessive say in world institutions (by their all-powerful veto) are not well-served by this ineffectiveness. Imagine if the WTO allowed certain countries to veto the decisions–it wouldn’t work. Imagine if the city of Beijing or Shanghai could veto any decision made by the People’s Congress. There would be anarchy, and resentment–and would not even be in these cities’ interests, let alone any others.
There’s a way of dealing with imposition: representative voting. I’m not advocating a particular language. I just used English as an example, since it is, as you agreed, the current world bridge language (though it is not used widely enough to work as a bridge everywhere). It would hardly be an imposition if China, the U.S., and other countries willingly agreed on the language. As I mentioned, there are also languages like one called Esperanto (Shijieyu) which could be considered if English wouldn’t get agreement. Here’s what I’m advocating: that countries come together to decide on a single language, whatever it may be (not necessarily English), and then abide by the majority decision. If it’s voting, it is not imposition. If you agree China has a right to settle on putonghua for a national language, surely China, as with other countries, can take part in a global vote to indicate its preference for an international language. World institutions are not foreign–we are a part of them and have a say in them (and if we don’t, the institutions need to be fixed, not abandoned).
(Of course, the meaning of a “majority” decision will have to be worked out by the various countries to decide how to fairly constitute such a decision-making body, no doubt giving added weight to a nation’s population, but not too much, etc.).
It is indisputably within all nations’ true interests to be able to share one common means of communication. China has already made the choice to teach English at an early age (I presume you agree they have a right to do this, no?)–but this will not be as effective, if certain other nations are not doing the same.
Learning bits and pieces of a person’s culture, while conducive to friendship, can only bring a very superficial understanding of that culture. What the world needs is to be able to communicate in a common language on a deeper level, as we are doing here. Language is not like a computer chip that can be updated or exchanged freely–it takes time to learn. I am grateful for the chance to be able to speak directly with you and others here–but I don’t want our discussion to be limited to people from those countries which happened to teach English–I hope anyone could join in.
Internet chats and discussions should be open between any two people on the planet–no middle men who interfere and get to tell me what it is that Chinese people think or whatever; give me a chance to decide for myself, but without expecting me to learn every language in the world to be able to do this with any person I meet.
Families who need to move or want to move for work, should be free to move somewhere where they will automatically have at least one common basis of communication, even if it is indeed ideal that they learn some of the local language.
Immigrant children should not be forced to suffer so strongly because they didn’t happen to learn a language shared by the people in the country to which they are moving.
Scientists, educators, programmers, etc. should be able to put up a website which can educate or be of use to anyone in the world without needing to pay for translations or use imperfect translation tools. If they want to translate into other languages, fine, but it just shouldn’t be required.
When the future world is full of even more multi-racial children, when boundaries become more meaningless, people will look back at this time (just as Chinese now may look back at their warring states periods) and wonder why we were so attached to our narrow little ideas of nation–not because there is anything wrong with our national cultures (at least not completely), but because we allowed differences to get in the way of working toward integration. The world will get a world language eventually, the only question is exactly how long we will delay its benefits.
This reminds me of an article I read in the Reader’s Digest. Just an off-topic remark–gah! I forgot the island name–they did research on this seemingly peaceful paradise of an island. And it turned out that the island is so not connected to the outside world that many types of violence occur within, mainly rape and children and women abuse.
I get your point about extreme sovereignty. Sometimes, I think that is exactly the problem we have in my country. So many people can just voice out their opinions freely and nothing concrete gets done. We’re a bunch of opinionated people!
Anyway, from my perspective, it seems there is no need to make an official vote. Unless we make it a law that English is a necessary subject to be taught in school. Like for non-English-speaking countries, we could start with how many units in grade school and on to college. Though maybe a representative voting will help convince lawmakers to do just that.
As for English-speaking countries, we could have laws too encouraging the study of another official language of their choice. Though what’s difficult with foreign languages is that if you don’t use them on a continual basis, the skill level gradually deteriorates.
You now make me wonder what other language there is (besides English) that can merit global study! I am also not advocating English but apparently, it really does somehow look as the unofficial bridge language already!
Translation will always be imperfect, because there are some words better expressed in another dialect or language.
Yeah, foreign language study wouldn’t be a bad idea if the governments do decide on English. But if there is no official coordination or sense of ownership (such as voting is designed to do), there’s no guarantee countries would act on their own–and even if they did, again, English still wouldn’t be serving as a fully world language. We make laws for the most inane things–why not for something which would benefit all of our children around the world?
As far as other languages meriting global study, while some (some for religious reasons) have suggested Latin, Arabic, etc., one particular language you should definitely know about is Esperanto (shijie yu): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto This language was invented in the 1800′s with simple grammar rules so it is easy to learn, it is less culturally based (as it draws from different languages), and was designed to serve as such a world language. And it has a few million speakers now. There was also an attempt at a Chinese-based (but vastly simplified I guess) constructed language, but I don’t think this has any real community of speakers.
Although there are some who favor Esperanto, many others will give a derisive chuckle if they hear of it, because it hasn’t met the expectations of encircling the globe as people had for it. Although I’m not partisan in favor of or against any particular language, I will say I think it is unfair to say that Esperanto hasn’t “worked” though because it has in fact 1) Gained a good amount of literature and been actually used for inter-communication, and 2) If countries agreed to teach it, of course it would enjoy more success if people knew it were going to officially become the world language–but trying to get people to learn the language now, while perhaps interesting, is not likely to be sufficient to become a true world language, unless it is decided on officially (though maybe since it is more culturally neutral, it could be more successful in getting agreement–but the important thing is that, whatever the language, we would only need a significant majority–one couldn’t satisfy every single country).
But since there are disagreements about which language should be used, and people often get into useless and theoretical debates about it, rather than actually doing something about it as you say, I wanted to promote the idea of bringing the issue to a vote (the idea is hardly my own–many others support such a language). I set up a website a while ago to promote the idea and a number of volunteers translated the site: http://onetongue.com (I’m not sure about the Chinese translation, though)). I haven’t spent enough time on it lately, but I just started up a Facebook group to promote it if anyone is interested: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=116981131656 . I think this is an issue which could really use more discussion and awareness-raising…
Oh, cool! First time I’ve heard of Esperanto. It looks difficult to learn though. I thought it would be similar to English in words.
You really are into this. Let me go over your website.
So are you conversant in Esperanto?
Sigh–lost my post for being “spammy”… Funny my one relatively small post here gets rejected… :)
Trying my post in two parts…
Esperanto is based in part on Romance languages, so if you know Italian, French, or Spanish, it could be easier (though that’s one complaint some make against it, that a constructed language should be comprised of more languages rather than European ones or easier for non-Europeans, even though it does borrow from other languages). Dr. Zamenhof thought Italian was the most beautiful language, so it sounds a little like it (every noun ends in ‘o’, no exceptions).
One interesting tidbit … Esperanto has 100,000+ articles at Wikipedia, putting it in the top tier (though not top 10) of languages represented: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
Last part…
No, I don’t speak Esperanto, though I can count to 10 in it. :)
A few in our Yahoo group do speak it though…
Interesting! Have you heard of Chavacano? It’s like broken Spanish spoken in some parts of our country (Philippines).
Esperanto seems to me like a broken form of language.
Didn’t recall hearing of it, but it makes sense there is such a creole in the Philippines, where has been interaction of a native language (Tagalog) and a foreign language (Spanish).
While “pidgin” languages–those languages used between peoples who have only superficial contact (e.g., pidgins often developed where there was a need for a common language for trading at ports)–are indeed incomplete languages, borrowing one language partially into part of another (usually a foreign vocabulary and local grammar), and cannot fully express human thought, creole languages (as Chavacano appears to be from its Wikipedia article)–languages which began as pidgins but became expanded by subsequent generations who inherited the pidgin and adapted it as their own (e.g., say by the children of couples who could only use a pidgin to communicate)–are, while they may sound incomplete to native speakers of one of the base languages (since they borrow from each), fully developed and legitimate human languages.
It is similar to how children of non-native speakers come to recognize the poor grammar of their parents and become fluent speakers of the language of their environment. Human beings are widely supposed to possess a natural ability to learn languages, and they also possess the ability to make up for gaps in an incomplete language (this is also true for second generations who learned incomplete sign languages).
As far as Esperanto, unlike a pidgin, it has been designed and used to fully express human thought. Besides this, there are also actually supposed to be about 1000 native speakers of it (e.g., where couples both communicated through Esperanto and their children acquired it through them, making it their own): http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/sky/julkaisut/SKY2006_1/1FK60.1.5.LINDSTEDT.pdf .
Another interesting claim in the same article is that the normal process of “nativization” mentioned above (where an incomplete pidgin becomes a full-fledged creole by second-generation use) did not really lead to many differences in the use of Esperanto, suggesting that Esperanto was already adequate enough as a full-fledged language, before these second-generation users incorporated it as their native language. Esperantists can communicate with each other just fine, or at least as far as they have studied it.
Belief in the superiority of languages is a very hard issue for many to get over–since we’re all given the impression that using “ain’t” or other non-standard language is somehow imperfect. While it may be if you’re trying to get a job, as far as linguists are concerned, there is absolutely no fundamental difference between the expressiveness of any non-pidgin/non-jargon language (i.e., creole or other native language) and another.
The differences are really mostly social and political. As one philosopher famously said, “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.” There is nothing inherent in one dialect which makes it wholly superior to another–it just depends on which has greater prestige (or, on the other hand, something called “covert prestige” which basically means people respect it because it is cool).
For example, Black Vernacular English, which has been looked down upon by some, including by even African-Americans, possesses the habitual “be” grammatical form which is able to express a tense or aspect not present in standard English–it is actually richer than standard English in this regard, and many so-called deficiencies are only due to judging it using standard English as the measure, which does not make for an objective comparison.
Linguists generally consider Mandarin and Cantonese as independent languages–not dialects of the same language. If they are mutually unintelligible, they are seen by linguists as languages–since there is no other objective criteria we could really use (though granted, these two do share the same script). However, for political reasons, they are called “dialects”. (All languages have evolved over time, with many ancestor languages, some suggesting even back to a single Proto-World language–it’s not as clear cut as nationalists would like it to be–those who like to make us think that our country has always been using this same one “pure” language, or whatever.)
On the other end of the extreme (away from the Chinese situation), Serbian and Croatian are seen by linguists as indeed being dialects (since it is possible for a user of one to understand the other), but because these groups have been fighting and at odds, they have tried to assert their independence from each other and call themselves separate languages.
So, for political reasons, people will try to draw lines closer or farther, and will try to paint some as better than others, but since an (independent, non-pidgin) language is really just one dialect which evolves far enough to become mutually unintelligible with another, such lines are not really justified by the science of language.
Hope that’s not too confusing (and sorry to go off again). :)
Hey Brett,
I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge here.
I guess, the bottom line is–languages will always evolve. And what works for a majority group of people may eventually become “right” even if there are grammatical issues or politicizing involved.
Esperanto’s origin is very intriguing.
Not exactly sure the context you were referring to when you said: “And what works for a majority group of people may eventually become “right” even if there are grammatical issues or politicizing involved.”
If you mean dialects will evolve, including standard dialects, then yes that is true, including changes within the standard which were not “correct” even according to the standard itself: e.g., “false etymology” or “folk etymology” (the historical linguistics sense of the phrase, not the common one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_etymology ).
But when I talked about political reasons, I didn’t mean that the language itself was changing because of political reasons (that can happen too)–just that how we define what a language is and what a dialect is can be a political issue, or at least a socio-politically inspired issue.
I also didn’t mean to give the impression that the insistence that Cantonese and Mandardin was one language was necessarily a politicization (many who call them a common language aren’t even aware of the general scientific distinction between them, so it is certainly not necessarily contrarian). I was more saying that political identity causes people to call things a certain way. And there certainly is more reason to consider Cantonese and Mandarin as a single language given their shared script–but linguists tend to consider spoken language as primary, so since these are not mutually intelligible, they tend to classify these as independent languages, not dialects.
But there should be, I imagine, cases in the world where, for example, two bordering countries may have one country trying to insist that a certain language of a minority in their country belongs as part of their own majority’s language, when it really is more closely related to a language in the other neighboring country. (The Soviet Union forced its Arabic-speaking minorities to use Cyrillic for their script, but I don’t know that they tried to convince anyone that the dialects there were actually of Russian origin!) But as far as I know, China doesn’t have any problem acknowledging the historically distinct or foreign origins of some of its minority languages.
I understand that the one thing which caused strong rioting in South Africa during apartheid was when a change was to be made to stop instruction in the native language. It can be a very contentious (and ultimately also linguistically counter-productive) issue to try to force a linguistic minority to give up use of its language (or any fundamental practices for that matter).
While total language immersion may be successful in some cases, where resources are limited or where the language learner is eager to assimilate, in the case of significant linguistic minorities, it is generally not only more smooth but also more successful if there is respect for the native language by the teacher, peers, and community, and if there is some allowance for using the native language in making a transition to the language.
In my experience as a former language teacher (children as well as adults), it is also far more successful when the majority spends at least a little time learning minority languages and learning directly from the minority about their culture, as the minority students start to feel more included and genuinely respected by the majority. And if that happens, they will be more motivated to learn the majority language. But when the prevailing attitude is to look down on the minority or its language, or even if the minority is simply not integrated into some of the mainstream classes (like at grade school), there will be less success in integration, and even more social problems.
I just remembered–there’s a news article that came out announcing that new words are added to the English dictionary (actually this comes out yearly). They’re being recognized as “official” words and not just TV slang, etc.
There’s also a Chinese version. Take this article from the People’s Daily Online– http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200512/30/eng20051230_231777.html.
Singlish borrows from Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, and Tamil. I think there will come a time when many words will be borrowed from among the Chinese dialects. (Or is this happening already?) And a whole new creole or pidgin language will emerge.
To me a dialect is still understandable to citizens speaking the standard language. In China dialects might as well be a different languages. Unless China can unite in one language (true dialects are ok as long as they can still decipher the language among different regions) it will be very difficult to become a developed nation. To a foreigner’s ear (mine) Mandarin sounds nicer than Cantonese (I have not heard other dialects and cannot comment). China large population is an asset, but it’s also a huge impedance in growth and development.
Yes, Please! Let the local stations use the local dialect for news and other shows. I would love it.