Varieties of Chinese
|mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore and other areas with historic immigration from China.|
|ISO 639-2 / 5:||zhx|
Primary branches of Chinese
Chinese (汉语/漢語 Hànyǔ) is a branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family, consisting of hundreds of local language varieties, many of which are not mutually intelligible. The differences are at least as great as within the Romance languages, with variation particularly strong in the more rugged southeast. These varieties have been classified into seven to ten groups, the largest being Mandarin (e.g. Beijing dialect), Wu (e.g. Shanghainese), Min (e.g. Taiwanese Hokkien), and Yue (e.g. Cantonese).
Chinese varieties differ most in their phonology, and to a lesser extent in vocabulary and syntax. Southern varieties tend to have fewer initial consonants than northern and central varieties, but more often preserve the Middle Chinese final consonants. All have phonemic tones, with northern varieties tending to have fewer distinctions than southern ones. Many have tone sandhi, with the most complex patterns in the coastal area from Zhejiang to eastern Guangdong.
- 1 History
- 2 Classification
- 3 Phonology
- 4 Vocabulary
- 5 Examples of variations
- 6 Sociolinguistics
- 7 See also
- 8 Notes
- 9 References
- 10 Further reading
- 11 External links
At the end of the 2nd millennium BC, a form of Chinese was spoken in a compact area around the lower Wei River and middle Yellow River. From there it expanded eastwards across the North China Plain to Shandong and then south into the valley of the Yangtze River and beyond to the hills of south China. As the language spread, it replaced formerly dominant languages in those areas, and regional differences grew. Simultaneously, especially in periods of political unity, there was a tendency to promote a central standard to facilitate communication between people from different regions.
The first evidence of dialectal variation is found in texts from the Spring and Autumn period (722–479 BC). At that time, the Zhou royal domain, though no longer politically powerful, still defined standard speech. The Fangyan (early 1st century AD) is devoted to differences in vocabulary between regions. Commentaries from the Eastern Han period (first two centuries AD) contain much discussion of local variations in pronunciation. The Qieyun rhyme book (601 AD) noted wide variation in pronunciation between regions, and set out to define a standard pronunciation for reading the classics. This standard, known as Middle Chinese, is believed to be a diasystem based on the reading traditions of northern and southern capitals.
The North China Plain provided few barriers to migration, leading to relative linguistic homogeneity over a wide area in northern China. In contrast, the mountains and rivers of southern China have spawned the other six major groups of Chinese languages, with great internal diversity, particularly in Fujian.
Until the mid-20th century, most Chinese people spoke only their local language. As a practical measure, officials of the Ming and Qing dynasties carried out the administration of the empire using a common language based on Mandarin varieties, known as Guānhuà (官話, literally "speech of officials"). Knowledge of this language was thus essential for an official career, but it was never formally defined.
In the early years of the Republic of China, Literary Chinese was replaced as the written standard by written vernacular Chinese, which was based on northern dialects. In the 1930s a standard national language was adopted, with its pronunciation based on the Beijing dialect, but with vocabulary also drawn from other Mandarin varieties. It is the official spoken language of the People's Republic of China and of the Republic of China governing Taiwan, and one of the official languages of Singapore.
Standard Chinese now dominates public life, and is much more widely studied than any other variety of Chinese. Outside of China, the only two varieties commonly taught in formal courses are Standard Chinese and Cantonese.
Chinese has a diversity that has been likened to that within the Romance languages, but may be even more varied. Jerry Norman estimated that there are hundreds of mutually unintelligible varieties of Chinese. These varieties form a dialect continuum, in which differences in speech generally become more pronounced as distances increase, although there are also some sharp boundaries. However, the rate of change in mutual intelligibility varies immensely depending on region. For example, the varieties of Mandarin spoken in all three northeastern Chinese provinces are mutually intelligible, but in the province of Fujian, where Min varieties predominate, the speech of neighbouring counties or even villages may be mutually unintelligible.
Classifications of Chinese varieties in the late 19th century and early 20th century were based on impressionistic criteria. They often followed river systems, which were historically the main routes of migration and communication in southern China. The first scientific classifications, based primarily on the evolution of Middle Chinese voiced initials, were produced by Wang Li in 1936 and Li Fang-Kuei in 1937, with minor modifications by other linguists since. The conventionally accepted set of seven dialect groups first appeared in the second edition of Yuan Jiahua's dialectology handbook (1961):
- This is the group spoken in northern and southwestern China and has by far the most speakers. This group includes the Beijing dialect, which forms the basis for Standard Chinese, called Putonghua or Guoyu in Chinese, and often also translated as "Mandarin" or simply "Chinese". In addition, the Dungan language of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan is a Mandarin variety written in the Cyrillic script.
- These varieties are spoken in Shanghai, most of Zhejiang and the southern parts of Jiangsu and Anhui. The group comprises hundreds of distinct spoken forms, many of which are not mutually intelligible. The Suzhou dialect is usually taken as representative, because the Shanghai dialect features several atypical innovations. Wu varieties are distinguished by their retention of voiced or murmured obstruent initials (stops, affricates and fricatives).
- These varieties are spoken in Jiangxi and neighbouring areas. The Nanchang dialect is taken as representative. In the past, Gan was viewed as closely related to Hakka because of the way Middle Chinese voiced initials became voiceless aspirated initials as in Hakka, and were hence called by the umbrella term "Hakka–Gan dialects".
- The Xiang varieties are spoken in Hunan. The New Xiang varieties, represented by the Changsha dialect, have been significantly influenced by Southwest Mandarin, whereas Old Xiang varieties, represented by the Shuangfeng dialect retain features such as voiced initials.
- Spoken in Fujian, eastern Guangdong, Hainan, Taiwan, parts of Southeast Asia, and other parts of the world, Min is the only branch of Chinese that cannot be directly derived from Middle Chinese. It is also the most diverse, with many varieties used in neighbouring counties, and in the mountains of western Fujian even in adjacent villages, being mutually unintelligible. The most widely spoken Min language is Hokkien, which includes the Amoy dialect of southern Fujian, Taiwanese in Taiwan, and is also spoken by many Chinese in Southeast Asia. Early classifications divided Min into Northern and Southern subgroups, but a survey in the early 1960s found that the primary split was between inland and coastal groups.
- The Hakka (literally "guest families") are group of Han Chinese living in the hills of northeast Guangdong and many other parts of southern China, as well as Taiwan and parts of Southeast Asia such as Malaysia and Singapore. The Meixian dialect is the prestige form. Most Hakka varieties retain the full complement of nasal endings, -m -n -ŋ and stop endings -p -t -k, though there is a tendency for Middle Chinese velar codas -ŋ and -k to yield dental codas -n and -t after front vowels.
- These varieties are spoken in Guangdong, Guangxi, Hong Kong and Macau, and have been carried by immigrants to Southeast Asia and many other parts of the world. The prestige variety is Cantonese, from the city of Guangzhou, which is also the native language of the majority in Hong Kong and Macau. Taishanese, from a coastal area southwest of Guangzhou, is the most common Yue dialect among overseas communities. Not all Yue varieties are mutually intelligible. Most Yue varieties retain the full complement of Middle Chinese word-final consonants (p, t, k, m, n and ŋ) and have rich inventories of tones.
- These varieties, spoken in Shanxi and adjacent areas, were formerly included in Mandarin. They are distinguished by their retention of the Middle Chinese entering tone category.
- The Hui dialects, spoken in southern Anhui, were previously considered a transitional group between Wu and Gan.
- These varieties are descended from the speech of the earliest Chinese migrants to Guangxi, predating the later influx of Yue and Southwest Mandarin speakers. Some linguists treat them as a mixture of Yue and Xiang.
Some varieties remain unclassified, including the Danzhou dialect of northwestern Hainan, Waxiang, spoken in a small strip of land in western Hunan, and Shaozhou Tuhua, spoken in the border regions of Guangdong, Hunan, and Guangxi. This region is an area of great linguistic diversity and has not yet been conclusively described.
Relationships between groups
Jerry Norman classified the traditional seven dialect groups into three larger groups: Northern (Mandarin), Central (Wu, Gan, and Xiang) and Southern (Hakka, Yue, and Min). He argued that the Southern Group is derived from a standard used in the Yangtze valley during the Han dynasty (206 BC–220 AD), which he called Old Southern Chinese, while the Central group was transitional between the Northern and Southern groups. Some dialect boundaries, such as between Wu and Min, are particularly abrupt, while others, such as between Mandarin and Xiang or between Min and Hakka, are much less clearly defined.
Scholars account for the transitional nature of the central varieties in terms of wave models. Iwata argues that innovations have been transmitted from the north across the Huai River to the Lower Yangtze Mandarin area and from there southeast to the Wu area and westwards along the Yangtze River valley and thence to southwestern areas, leaving the hills of the southeast largely untouched.
A 2007 study compared fifteen major urban dialects on the objective criteria of lexical similarity and regularity of sound correspondences, and subjective criteria of intelligibility and similarity. Most of these criteria show a top-level split with Northern, New Xiang, and Gan in one group and Min (samples at Fuzhou, Xiamen, Chaozhou), Hakka, and Yue in the other group. The exception was phonological regularity, where the one Gan dialect (Nanchang) was in the Southern group and very close to Hakka, and the deepest phonological difference was between Wenzhounese (the southernmost Wu dialect) and all other dialects.
The study did not find clear splits within Northern and Central area:
- Changsha (New Xiang) was always within the Mandarin group. No Old Xiang dialect was in the sample.
- Taiyuan (Jin or Shanxi) and Hankou (Wuhan, Hubei) were subjectively perceived as relatively different from other Northern dialects but were very close in subjective intelligibility. Objectively, Taiyuan had substantial phonological divergence but little lexical divergence.
- Chengdu (Sichuan) was somewhat divergent lexically but very little on the other measures.
The two Wu dialects occupied an intermediate position, closer to the Northern/New Xiang/Gan group in lexical similarity and strongly closer in subjective intelligibility but closer to Min/Hakka/Yue in phonological regularity and subjective similarity, except that Wenzhou was farthest from all other dialects in phonological regularity. The two Wu dialects were close to each other in lexical similarity and subjective similarity but not in subjective intelligibility, where Suzhou was actually closer to Northern/Xiang/Gan than to Wenzhou.
In the Southern subgroup, Hakka and Yue grouped closely together on the three lexical and subjective measures but not in phonological regularity. The Min dialects showed high divergence, with Min Fuzhou (Eastern Min) grouped only weakly with the Southern Min dialects of Xiamen and Chaozhou on the two objective criteria and was actually slightly closer to Hakka and Yue on the subjective criteria.
Local varieties from different areas of China are often mutually unintelligible, differing at least as much as different Romance languages. For this reason many linguists treat Chinese as a family of languages within the Sino-Tibetan language phylum. This branch is often called Sinitic, though some linguists also include Bai in this grouping. ISO 639-3 follows the Ethnologue in assigning language codes to eight of the top-level groups listed above (all but Min and Pinghua) and five subgroups of Min. However, because the varieties share a common written form, and have a common cultural heritage with long periods of political unity, they are popularly perceived among native speakers as variants of a single Chinese language, and this is also the official position. Linguists in China often use a formulation introduced by Fu Maoji in the Encyclopedia of China: "In language classification, Chinese has a status equivalent to a language family."[a]
The Chinese term fāngyán 方言 is a compound of fāng 方, meaning "place, region, area", and yán 言 meaning "speech, talk, language". It was the title of the first work of Chinese dialectology in the Han dynasty, and has had a range of meanings in the millennia since. It is now used for any regional subdivision of Chinese, from the speech of a village to major branches such as Mandarin and Wu. Linguists writing in Chinese, however, often qualify the term to distinguish different levels of classification. All these terms have customarily been translated into English as dialect. However, linguists have pointed out that this use of dialect is inappropriate when applied to the major subdivisions, which under the usual criterion of mutual intelligibility would be considered separate languages. Indeed, under the same criterion each of these subdivisions would comprise a group of languages. John DeFrancis proposed the neologism regionalect to serve as a translation for fāngyán when referring to mutually unintelligible divisions, whereas Victor Mair has coined topolect as a translation for all uses of fāngyán. (The latter term appears in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.)
Conventional English-language usage in the field is to use dialect for the speech of a particular place, from Beijing dialect in the capital to rural varieties. Regional groupings, such as Mandarin and Wu, are called dialect groups.
The usual unit of analysis is the syllable, traditionally analysed as consisting of an initial consonant, a final and a tone. In general, southern varieties have fewer initial consonants than northern and central varieties, but more often preserve the Middle Chinese final consonants. Some varieties, such as Cantonese and the Shanghai dialect, include syllabic nasals as independent syllables.
In the 42 varieties surveyed in the Great Dictionary of Modern Chinese Dialects, the number of initials (including a zero initial) ranges from 15 in some southern dialects to a high of 35 in the dialect of Chongming Island, Shanghai.
|Fuzhou (Min)||Suzhou (Wu)||Beijing (Mandarin)|
The initial system of the Fuzhou dialect of northern Fujian is a minimal example. With the exception of /ŋ/, which is often merged with the zero initial, the initials of this dialect are present in all Chinese varieties, although several varieties do not distinguish /n/ from /l/. However, most varieties have additional initials, due to a combination of innovations and retention of distinctions from Middle Chinese. Most non-Min varieties have a labio-dental fricative /f/, which developed from Middle Chinese bilabial stops in certain environments. The voiced initials of Middle Chinese are retained in Wu dialects such as Suzhou and Shanghai, as well as Old Xiang dialects, but have merged with voiceless initials elsewhere. The Middle Chinese retroflex initials are retained in many Mandarin dialects, including Beijing but not southwestern and southeastern Mandarin varieties. In many northern and central varieties there is palatalization of dental affricates or velars (or both).
Conservative vowel systems, such as those of Gan and Hakka dialects, have high vowels /i/, /u/ and /y/, which also function as medials, mid vowels /e/ and /o/, and a low /a/-like vowel. In other dialects, including Mandarin dialects, /o/ has merged with /a/, leaving a single mid vowel with a wide range of allophones. Many dialects, particularly in northern and central China, have apical or retroflex vowels, which are syllabic fricatives derived from high vowels following sibilant initials. In many Wu dialects, vowels and final glides have monophthongized, producing a rich inventory of vowels in open syllables. Reduction of medials is also common in Yue dialects.
The Middle Chinese codas, consisting of glides /j/ and /w/, nasals /m/, /n/ and /ŋ/, and stops /p/, /t/ and /k/, are best preserved in southern dialects, particularly Yue dialects. In Jin, Lower Yantze Mandarin and Wu dialects, the stops have merged as a final glottal stop, while in most northern varieties they have disappeared. In Mandarin dialects final /m/ has merged with /n/, while some central dialects have a single nasal coda, in some cases realized as a nasal vowel.
All varieties of Chinese, like neighbouring languages in the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area, have phonemic tones. Each syllable may be pronounced with between three and six distinct pitch contours, denoting different morphemes. The number of tonal contrasts varies between dialects, with northern dialects tending to have fewer distinctions than southern ones. For example, in the standard language the four phonemic tones can be demonstrated with mā (妈 "mother"), má (麻 "hemp"), mǎ (马 "horse") and mà (骂 "to scold"). Many dialects have tone sandhi, in which the pitch contour of a syllable is affected by the tones of adjacent syllables in a compound word of phrase. This process is so extensive in Shanghainese that the tone system is reduced to a pitch accent system much like modern Japanese.
The tonal categories of modern varieties can be related by considering their derivation from the tones of Middle Chinese, though cognate tonal categories in different dialects are often realized as quite different pitch contours. Middle Chinese had a three-way tonal contrast on all syllables except those ending in stops. The traditional names of the tonal categories are "level" (平 píng), "rising" (上 shǎng), and "departing" (去 qù). Syllables ending in a stop consonant /p/, /t/ or /k/ (checked syllables) had no tonal contrasts but were traditionally treated as a fourth tone category, "entering" (入 rù), corresponding to syllables ending in nasals /m/, /n/, or /ŋ/.
The tones of Middle Chinese, as well as similar systems in neighbouring languages, experienced a tone split conditioned by syllabic onsets. Syllables with voiced initials tended to be pronounced with a lower pitch, and by the late Tang Dynasty, each of the tones had split into two registers conditioned by the initials, known as the "upper", or 阴/陰 (yīn), and the "lower", or 阳/陽 (yáng). When voicing was lost in all dialects except the Wu and Old Xiang groups, this distinction became phonemic, yielding eight tonal categories, with a six-way contrast in unchecked syllables and a two-way contrast in checked syllables. Cantonese maintains these tones and has developed an additional distinction in checked syllables. However, most varieties have reduced the number of tonal distinctions. For example, in Mandarin, the tones resulting from the split of Middle Chinese rising and departing tones merged, leaving four tones. Furthermore, final stop consonants disappeared in most Mandarin dialects, and such syllables were reassigned to one of the other four tones.
|Middle Chinese tone and initial|
|Jin||Taiyuan||1 ˩||3 ˥˧||5 ˥||7 ˨˩||8 ˥˦|
|Mandarin||Xi'an||1 ˧˩||2 ˨˦||3 ˦˨||5 ˥||1||2|
|Beijing||1 ˥||2 ˧˥||3 ˨˩˦||5 ˥˩||1,2,3,5||5||2|
|Chengdu||1 ˦||2 ˧˩||3 ˥˧||5 ˩˧||2|
|Yangzhou||1 ˨˩||2 ˧˥||3 ˧˩||5 ˥||7 ˦|
|Xiang||Changsha||1 ˦||2 ˨˦||3 ˥˨||6||5 ˦˩˨||6 ˧˩||7 ˦||8 ˨˧|
|Shuangfeng||1 ˦||2 ˨˧||3 ˨˩||6||5 ˧˥||6 ˧||2, 5|
|Gan||Nanchang||1 ˦˨||2 ˨˦||3 ˨˩˧||6||5 ˦˥||6 ˨˩||7 ˥||8 ˨˩|
|Wu||Suzhou||1 ˦||2 ˨˦||3 ˦˩||6||5 ˥˩˧||6 ˧˩||7 ˦||8 ˨˧|
|Shanghai||1 ˦˨||2 ˨˦||3 ˧˥||2||3||2||7 ˥||8 ˨˧|
|Wenzhou||1 ˦||2 ˧˩||3 ˦˥||4 ˨˦||5 ˦˨||6 ˩||7 ˨˧||8 ˩˨|
|Min||Xiamen||1 ˥||2 ˨˦||3 ˥˩||6||5 ˩||6 ˧||7 ˧˨||8 ˥|
|Hakka||Meixian||1 ˦||2 ˩˨||3 ˧˩||1,3||1||5 ˦˨||7 ˨˩||8 ˦|
|Yue||Guangzhou||1 ˥˧||2 ˨˩||3 ˧˥||4 ˨˦[b]||5 ˦||6 ˧||7a ˥||7b ˦||8 ˧|
In Wu, voiced obstruents were retained, and the tone split never became phonemic: the higher-pitched allophones occur with initial voiceless consonants, and the lower-pitched allophones occur with initial voiced consonants. (Traditional Chinese classification nonetheless counts these as different tones.) Most Wu dialects retain the tone categories of Middle Chinese, but in Shanghainese several of these have merged.
Many Chinese varieties exhibit tone sandhi, in which the realization of a tone varies depending on the context of the syllable. For example, in Standard Chinese a third tone changes to a second tone when followed by another third tone. Particularly complex sandhi patterns are found in Wu dialects and coastal Min dialects. In Shanghainese, the tone of all syllables in a word is determined by the tone of the first, so that Shanghainese has word rather than syllable tone.
|This section does not cite any references or sources. (June 2013)|
The following table was transliterated using the International Phonetic Alphabet. The forms account for lexical (writing) differences in addition to phonological (sound) differences. For example, the Mandarin word for the pronoun "s/he" is 他 [tʰa˥], but in Cantonese (Yue) a different word, 佢 [kʰɵy˩˧], is used. [Wu, Xiang missing tone]
|you||ni˨˩˦||noŋ||n̩||n̩˨˩˧||n˩, nʲi˩||nei˩˧, lei˩˧||li˥˩|
|this||tʂɤ˥˩||ɡəʔ||ko||ko˨˩˧||e˧˩, nʲia˧˩||niː˥, jiː˥||tɕɪt˥|
|woman||ny˨˩˦||ȵy||ɳy||ɳi˨˩˧||ŋ˧˩, nʲi˧˩||nɵy˩˧, lɵy˩˧||li˥˩|
|father||pa˥˩ pa˩||ɦia||io||ia˦˥||a˦ pa˦||paː˥||lau˧ pe˧|
|mother||ma˥ ma˨||ȵiã||m mo||ɳiɔŋ˦˥||a˦ me˦||maː˥||lau˧ bo˥˩|
|child||ɕjɑʊ˩ χai˧˥||ɕiɔ ȵiŋ||ɕi ŋa tsɨ||ɕi˦˥ ŋa tsɨ||se˥˧˥ nʲin˩ e˧||sɐi˧ lou˨||ɡɪn˥ a˥˩|
|to drink||χɤ˥||haʔ||tɕʰio||tɕʰiak˥||sɨt˥, jim˧˩||jɐm˧˥||lɪm˥|
|to say||ʂwɔ˥||kɑ̃||kã||ua˨˩||ʋa˥˧, ham˥˧, kɔŋ˧˩||kɔːŋ˧˥||kɔŋ˥˩|
|to see||kʰan˥˩||kʰø||uã||ɕiɔŋ˦˥, mɔŋ˨˩||kʰon˥˧||tʰɐi˧˥||kʰuã˧˩|
|to smell||wən˧˥||mən||uɛ̃||ɕiuŋ˦˥||ʋun˩, pʰi˥˧||mɐn˨˩||pʰĩ˧|
|to be lying down||tʰɑŋ˨˩˦||kʰuən||tʰã||kʰun˨˦||min˩, sɔi˥˧, tʰoŋ˧˩||fɐn˧||to˥˩|
|sun||tʰaɪ˥˩ jɑŋ˧˥||ȵiɪʔ dɤ||ɳi tɛu||ɳit˥ tʰɛu||nʲit˩ tʰɛu˩||tʰaːi˧ jœːŋ˨˩||lɪt˧˩ tʰau˩˦|
|moon||ɥœ˥˩l jɑŋ˩||ɦyɪʔ liã||y liã||ɳiot˨ kuɔŋ||nʲiet˥ kuɔŋ˦||jyuːt˨ kʷɔːŋ˥||ɡe˧˩ʔ niu˩˦|
|daytime||pai˧˥ tʰiɛn˥||ɳiɪʔ li ɕiã||pə tʰiẽ||ɳit˥ li||nʲit˩ sɨn˩ tʰeu˩||jɐt˨ tʰɐu˧˥||dʒɪ˧˩t ɕi˩˦|
|night||jɛ˥˩ wan˨˩˦||ɦia tɔ||io ka tsi||ia˨˩ li||am˥˧ pu˦ tʰeu˩,
am˥˧ pu˦ sɨn˩
|jɛː˨ maːn˩˧||am˥˩ ɕi˩˦|
Examples of variations
|This section does not cite any references or sources. (January 2014)|
The Min languages are often regarded as furthest removed linguistically from Standard Chinese in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. Historically, the Min languages were the first to diverge from the rest of the Chinese languages (see the discussion of historical Chinese phonology for more details). The Min languages are also the group with the greatest amount of internal diversity and are often regarded as consisting of at least five separate languages, e.g. Northern Min, Southern Min, Central Min, Eastern Min, and Puxian Min.
Goá kā-kī lâng ū tām-po̍h-á bô sóng-khoài.
Wǒ jiājǐ rén yǒu dànbó wú shuǎngkuài.
Could roughly be interpreted as:
My family's own person is weakly not feeling refreshed.
Whereas when spoken colloquially in Mandarin, one would either say,
Wǒ zìjǐ yǒu yīdiǎn bù shūfu.
I myself feel a bit uncomfortable.
Wǒ yǒu yīdiǎn bù shūfu.
I feel a bit uncomfortable.
the latter omitting the reflexive pronoun (zìjǐ), not usually needed in Mandarin.
Some people, particularly in northern China, would say,
Wǒ yǒu diǎnr bù shūfu.
Literally: I am [a] bit[DIM.] uncomfortable.
|This section does not cite any references or sources. (November 2008)|
Comparison with Europe
Differences in the socio-political context of Chinese and European languages gave rise to the difference in terms of linguistic perception between the two cultures. In Western Europe, Latin remained the written standard for centuries after the spoken language diverged and began shifting into distinct Romance languages, and similarly Classical Chinese remained the written standard while dialects of Old Chinese and Middle Chinese diverged. Latin, however, was eventually revived as a spoken language as well (Medieval Latin), and political fragmentation gave rise to independent states roughly the size of Chinese provinces, which eventually generated a political desire to create separate cultural and literary standards to differentiate nation-states and standardize the language within a nation-state. In China, however, the cultural standard of Classical Chinese (and later, Vernacular Chinese) remained a purely literary language, while the spoken language continued to diverge between different cities and counties, much as European languages diverged, due to the scale of the country and the obstruction of communication by geography.
The diverse Chinese spoken forms and common written form comprise a very different linguistic situation from that in Europe. In Europe, linguistic differences sharpened as the language of each nation-state was standardized. The use of local speech became stigmatized. In China, standardization of spoken languages was weaker, but they continued to be spoken, with written Classical Chinese read with local pronunciation. Although, as with Europe, dialects of regional political or cultural capitals were still prestigious and widely used as the region's lingua franca, their linguistic influence depended more on the capital's status and wealth than entirely on the political boundaries of the region.
Bilingualism with the standard variety
In southern China (not including Hong Kong and Macau), where the difference between Standard Chinese and local dialects are particularly pronounced, well-educated Chinese are generally fluent in Standard Chinese, and most people have at least a good passive knowledge of it, in addition to being native speakers of the local dialect. The choice of dialect varies based on the social situation. Standard Chinese is usually considered more formal and is required when speaking to a person who does not understand the local dialect. The local dialect (be it non-Standard Chinese or non-Mandarin altogether) is generally considered more intimate and is used among close family members and friends and in everyday conversation within the local area. Chinese speakers will frequently code switch between Standard Chinese and the local dialect. Parents will generally speak to their children in dialect, and the relationship between dialect and Mandarin appears to be mostly stable. Local languages give a sense of identity to local cultures.
Knowing the local dialect is of considerable social benefit, and most Chinese who permanently move to a new area will attempt to pick up the local dialect. Learning a new dialect is usually done informally through a process of immersion and recognizing sound shifts. Generally the differences are more pronounced lexically than grammatically. Typically, a speaker of one dialect of Chinese will need about a year of immersion to understand the local dialect and about three to five years to become fluent in speaking it. Because of the variety of dialects spoken, there are usually few formal methods for learning a local dialect.
Due to the variety in Chinese speech, Mandarin speakers from each area of China are very often prone to fuse or "translate" words from their local tongue into their Mandarin conversations. In addition, each area of China has its recognizable accents while speaking Mandarin. Generally, the nationalized standard form of Mandarin pronunciation is only heard on news and radio broadcasts. Even in the streets of Beijing, the flavour of Mandarin varies in pronunciation from the Mandarin heard on the media.
Within mainland China, there has been a persistent drive towards promoting the standard language (大力推广普通话; dàlì tuīguǎng Pǔtōnghuà); for instance, the education system is entirely Mandarin-medium from the second year onward. However, usage of local dialect is tolerated and socially preferred in many informal situations. In Hong Kong, colloquial Cantonese characters are never used in formal documents other than quoting witnesses' spoken statements during legal trials, and within the PRC a character set closer to Mandarin tends to be used. At the national level, differences in dialect generally do not correspond to political divisions or categories, and this has for the most part prevented dialect from becoming the basis of identity politics. Historically, many of the people who promoted Chinese nationalism were from southern China and did not natively speak the national standard language, and even leaders from northern China rarely spoke with the standard accent. For example, Mao Zedong often emphasized his Hunan origins in speaking, rendering much of what he said incomprehensible to many Chinese. One consequence of this is that China does not have a well-developed tradition of spoken political rhetoric, and most Chinese political works are intended primarily as written works rather than spoken works. Another factor that limits the political implications of dialect is that it is very common within an extended family for different people to know and use different dialects.
In Taiwan, the government there also had a policy of promoting Mandarin over the local languages, such as Taiwanese Hokkien and Hakka. This policy was implemented rigidly when Mandarin was the only language of instruction in schools, while English was offered as the compulsory second language. Since late 1990s, other languages have also been offered as a second language.
- Norman (1988), pp. 183, 185.
- Norman (1988), p. 183.
- Norman (1988), p. 185.
- Ramsey 1987, pp. 116–117.
- Norman (1988), pp. 24–25.
- Norman (1988), pp. 183–190.
- Ramsey (1987), p. 22.
- Norman (1988), p. 136.
- Ramsey (1987), pp. 3–15.
- Norman (1988), p. 247.
- Norman (1988), p. 187.
- Norman (2003), p. 72.
- Norman (1988), pp. 189–190.
- Norman (1988), p. 188.
- Lewis, Simons & Fennig (2015).
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 36–41.
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 41–53.
- Norman (1988), p. 181.
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 53–55.
- Yan (2006), p. 90.
- Norman (1988), pp. 199–200.
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 46, 49–50.
- Yan (2006), p. 148.
- Norman (1988), pp. 207–209.
- Kurpaska (2010), p. 49.
- Norman (1988), p. 233.
- Norman (1988), p. 224.
- Norman (1988), p. 217.
- Norman (1988), p. 215.
- Ramsey (1987), p. 98.
- Wurm et al. (1987).
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 55–56.
- Yan (2006), pp. 60–61.
- Yan (2006), pp. 222–223.
- Yan (2006), p. 235.
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 72–73.
- Norman (1988), pp. 182–183.
- Iwata (2010), pp. 102–108.
- Tang & Van Heuven (2007).
- Norman (1988), p. 1.
- Norman (2003), p. 73.
- Norman (1988), pp. 1–2.
- Liang (2014), p. 14.
- Mair (1991), pp. 3–6.
- DeFrancis (1984), p. 57.
- Mair (1991), p. 6.
- DeFrancis (1984), pp. 54–56.
- Mair (1991), pp. 17–19.
- Mair (1991), p. 7.
- Norman (1988), pp. 138–139.
- Norman (1988), pp. 212–213.
- Ramsey (1987), p. 101.
- Kurpaska (2010), pp. 186–188.
- Yan (2006), pp. 69, 90, 127.
- Norman (1988), pp. 139, 236.
- Yan (2006), p. 127.
- Norman (1988), pp. 211, 233.
- Norman (1988), pp. 199–200, 207.
- Norman (1988), p. 193.
- Norman (1988), pp. 182, 193, 200, 205.
- Norman (1988), pp. 28, 141.
- Yan (2006), pp. 160–151.
- Norman (1988), pp. 141, 198.
- Norman (1988), p. 194.
- Norman (1988), pp. 200–201.
- Norman (1988), pp. 216–217.
- Norman (1988), pp. 193, 201–202.
- Norman (1988), pp. 193, 201.
- Norman (1988), p. 9.
- Norman (1988), pp. 147, 202, 239.
- Norman (1988), p. 54.
- Norman (1988), pp. 34–36.
- Norman (1988), pp. 52–54.
- Norman (1988), pp. 195–196, 272.
- Yan (2006), pp. 116–117.
- Yan (2006), pp. 162–163.
- Norman (1988), p. 202.
- Norman (1988), pp. 238–239.
- Norman (1988), pp. 225–226.
- Norman (1988), p. 218.
- Norman (1988), pp. 146–147.
- Norman (1988), pp. 202, 239.
- Mair (1991), pp. 10, 21.
Books and articles
- DeFrancis, John (1984), The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-1068-9.
- Iwata, Ray (2010), "Chinese Geolinguistics: History, Current Trend and Theoretical Issues" (PDF), Dialectologia, Special issue I: 97–121.
- Kurpaska, Maria (2010), Chinese Language(s): A Look Through the Prism of "The Great Dictionary of Modern Chinese Dialects", Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-021914-2.
- Lewis, M. Paul; Simons, Gary F.; Fennig, Charles D., eds. (2015), Ethnologue: Languages of the World (Eighteenth ed.), Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
- Liang, Sihua (2014), Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China: A Linguistic Ethnography, Springer, ISBN 978-3-319-12618-0.
- Mair, Victor H. (1991), "What Is a Chinese "Dialect/Topolect"? Reflections on Some Key Sino-English Linguistic terms" (PDF), Sino-Platonic Papers 29: 1–31.
- Norman, Jerry (1988), Chinese, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-29653-3.
- —— (2003), "The Chinese dialects: phonology", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J., The Sino-Tibetan languages, Routledge, pp. 72–83, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
- Ramsey, S. Robert (1987), The Languages of China, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-01468-5.
- Tang, Chaoju; Van Heuven, Vincent J. (2007), "Predicting mutual intelligibility in chinese dialects from subjective and objective linguistic similarity" (PDF), Interlingüística 17: 1019–1028.
- Wurm, Stephen Adolphe; Li, Rong; Baumann, Theo; Lee, Mei W. (1987), Language Atlas of China, Longman, ISBN 978-962-359-085-3.
- Yan, Margaret Mian (2006), Introduction to Chinese Dialectology, LINCOM Europa, ISBN 978-3-89586-629-6.
- Ao, Benjamin (1991), "Comparative reconstruction of proto-Chinese revisited", Language Sciences 13 (3/4): 335–379, doi:10.1016/0388-0001(91)90022-S.
- Branner, David Prager (2000), Problems in Comparative Chinese Dialectology – the Classification of Miin and Hakka, Trends in Linguistics series, no. 123, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 978-3-11-015831-1.
- Chappell, Hilary (2001), "Synchrony and diachrony of Sinitic languages: A brief history of Chinese dialects" (PDF), in Chappell, Hilary, Sinitic grammar: synchronic and diachronic perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28, ISBN 978-0-19-829977-6.
- Chappell, Hilary; Li, Ming; Peyraube, Alain (2007), "Chinese linguistics and typology: the state of the art" (PDF), Linguistic Typology 11 (1): 187–211, doi:10.1515/LINGTY.2007.014.
- Groves, Julie M. (2008), "Language or Dialect – or Topolect? A Comparison of the Attitudes of Hong Kongers and Mainland Chinese towards the Status of Cantonese" (PDF), Sino-Platonic Papers 179: 1–103.
- Hamed, Mahé Ben (2005), "Neighbour-Nets Portray the Chinese Dialect Continuum and the Linguistic Legacy of China's Demic History", Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 (1567): 1015–1022, doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3015, PMC 1599877.
- Hannas, Wm. C. (1997), Asia's Orthographic Dilemma, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0-8248-1892-0.
- Norman, Jerry (2006), "Common Dialectal Chinese", in Branner, David Prager, The Chinese Rime Tables: Linguistic Philosophy and Historical-Comparative Phonology, Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 271, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–254, ISBN 978-90-272-4785-8.
- Simmons, Richard VanNess (1999), Chinese Dialect Classification: A comparative approach to Harngjou, Old Jintarn, and Common Northern Wu, John Benjamins, ISBN 978-90-272-8433-4.
- Yue, Anne O. (2003), "Chinese dialects: grammar", in Thurgood, Graham; LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan languages, Routledge, pp. 84–125, ISBN 978-0-7007-1129-1.
- DOC (Dialects of China or Dictionary on Computer), a database of pronunciations of 2614 characters in 18 urban varieties, compiled by William Wang and Chin-Chuan Cheng based on Hànyǔ Fāngyīn Zìhuì 汉語方音字汇 [Dictionary of Chinese dialect prounciations], Beijing University, 1962.
- Technical Notes on the Chinese Language Dialects, by Dylan W.H. Sung (Phonology and Official Romanization Schemes)
- 中国語方言リンク集 Link to Web pages on Chinese dialects