#the fusion of unlike but translationally equatable terms to create something new

[xuexishijian]

So the other day I posted some linguistics terms vocab, basic terms that I was curious about. And I looked up “dialect” and my dictionary gave me 方言 fāngyán, which I didn’t really question. Like fine, sure, “local speech,” that makes sense as what we call “dialect” in English.

But I just watched this lecture on YouTube called “How Fangyan became Dialects” by historian Dr. Gina Anne Tam and turns out that’s a very loaded assumption! Because basically there’s a long history of the sort of mismatch(?) between western terms for describing linguistic varieties (languages, dialects, vernaculars, etc etc) and those used in China. I’d definitely heard other Chinese languages such as Cantonese or Hokkien described as dialects, and this mistranslation or misrepresentation of 方言 is a major part of this problem.

The idea of language vs. dialect is a complex one, and these terms in Chinese languages don’t map 1-to-1 onto existing European-language ones. Linguists in the 19th and 20th century struggled with this and often made comparisons to what they knew from Europe, imposing distinctions and hierarchies that didn’t necessarily exist prior. Language and nationalism in Europe during these years is also super interesting and something I’ve read some about, and it makes sense then that westerners would be confused by a country with many forms of speaking when Europe was (and still is?) drawing up borders along linguistic+national+ethnic lines.

The development of nationalism in China through the 20th century led to further changes in the idea of a national language, especially with the promotion of first 國語 in the Republican era and 普通话 under the Communist government.

It’s interesting that what used to be a term for a region’s language can now be used in a hierarchical way to subordinate certain linguistic varieties to others. Dr. Tam mentioned that there was an article that generated controversy years ago that said that since Cantonese was a 方言 that is wasn’t fit to be taught and couldn’t be considered anyone’s 母语 mǔyǔ (mother language), that instead all Chinese people must learn and use 普通话, the national standard. This idea of course coming from the implications that 方言 now has, that it’s “merely” a dialect, that dialects aren’t “full” languages, that they’re inferior or incomplete or whatever.

Dr. Tam had a nicer way of phrasing this, but terminology is so important because these definitions—which may seem inconsequential, like we’re squabbling over minor issues that mean little—influence how we perceive and think, which in turn influences how we interact with the world. If a 方言 is just a dialect, and dialects are lower than languages, and Cantonese is a 方言, that means Cantonese is lesser. That’s a “logical” conclusion one can make, just a syllogism of X is Y, Y is Z, therefore X is Z (Cantonese is a 方言, 方言 is lesser, Cantonese is lesser). But that “logical” conclusion starts from a very very flawed premise, this definition which presupposes a hierarchy that doesn’t really exist linguistically (but then does exist socially and is justified by these “scientific” or “logical” reasons).

All that to say, this was a super interesting lecture (about her book that I might have to read!) and if you have time I would totally recommend giving it a watch. These terms are interesting and complex and nuanced, and knowing more about the history is really enlightening. I’ve been getting into language and identity lately, reading a lot about nationalism and race and the idea of “native speakers.” It feels like, while in other areas we might have made social progress, that language is one area that many people are super unaware of and take for granted their own biases without understanding these power structures and their histories.

Anyways I’d be curious to hear what anyone else has to say on the topic! And definitely if you watch her lecture let me know what you think!