 Randy_Tam wrote: |
I am only taking Mandarin as a
complusory second language credit course, my L1 being Cantonese
Chinese, now considered a 'dialect' for no justifiable reasons, as
there has never been a clear distinction drawn between a 'dialect' and
a 'language': do the 2 not share the very same traits of a 'language'
(a consistent grammar embedded so that an L1 speaker can tell whether
an expression is acceptable in his language)?
|
|
The distinction between a 'language' and a 'dialect' seems to me to
be so wide and so gray as to be almost arbitrary. In the case of
Chinese, it is my understanding that Cantonese is considered a dialect
of Mandarin because of the "Official Status" of Mandarin as the
official language of the PRC. Such a governmental promulgation
automatically relegates any other variants as either undesirable, or at the very least, secondary to the preferred variant.
Of course Cantonese is a language and has all the halmarks of a
language. Perhaps if the capitol of the PRC were in Hong Kong,
Cantonese would be the language and Mandarin would be the dialect.
Depending on your view of the role of prescriptivism in language, it
may be good or bad that one variant is chosen over another as the
primary, base, standard, or official language, leaving all others to
languish in their subordinate status. Often, it seems to be
either the literary class--those looked upon as authorities on the
subject--who don the mantle of setting the rules, or it is the language
of the area in which the capitol or cultural center lies. As an
example, I submit that American English--spoken by far more people than
Oxford English (I believe this to be the generally accepted
standard)--is considered my many to be the dialect, so to a great
extent geography and time (among other things) have roles in this as
well.
I personally consider Cantonese to be a separate language from
Mandarin because of the enourmous differences in the tone model, the
pronunciation of the words, and the phonetics (mind you, I am not an
authority on such things). Clarify something for me: if one
were not to have been taught Mandarin in school, would Mandarain and
Cantonese be mutually intelligible?
| Randy_Tam wrote: |
|
...Putonghua was 'designed and standardized (by a committee of
linguists... sadly enough), where the lexicon and pronunciations are
fabricated according to the dialects spoken around the northern
provinces, to be the common language of the entire Chinese
population'....
|
|
Case in point, perhaps. The word 'fabricated' is actually used!? Wow.
| Randy_Tam wrote: |
As a language is used in daily discourse, deviations related to 1.
the phonemic form 2. syntactic constructions 3. pragmatic uses 4.
stylistic variations 5. logical interpretations and the like, make
language change inevitable. I quote again the examples I came across
earlier: 1. the use of 'er' being more flexible these days (as more non
- L1 speakers of Putonghua now communicate in that language, whereas
the use of 'er' is simply insane in their native language, Cantonese
for example) 2. the more flexible use of the '5th tone' (probably
brought about by intercourse between Mainlander Chinese and Taiwanese
Chinese) 3. words borrowed from other Chinese 'dialects'. All these
blur, if not make impossible, the precise definition of the shape of a
language. It is for this reason that even though Putonghua was intended
as a prescribed language for the entire population, speech variations
nevertheless take place (Though asserted as 'wrongs', Chinese linguists
have devoted much effort in addressing 'common
errors' of a particular group of speaker, a prelude to
'language variations') and eventually prevail over such
prescriptions.
|
|
Absolutely right! I can see that you are very passionate about your view! And maybe a little offended, as well.
All this begs the question: What is the role of prescriptivism?
Well, as Julielai pointed out, such prescriptivism creates a framework
for learning. But if that is all it does, then the inevitable
change will render the framework useless. Fortunately, it is not
all it does.
Prescribing rules for syntax, usage, and grammar is often required to
conduct business on a meaningful level; the world economy is based on
the ability to communicate effectively and efficiently. Without
rules (read: communication protocols), such communication would be
virtually impossible and the economy of the world (as an aggregate)
would very likely falter or fail.
As with anything, those in power make the rules and you likely will not
hear street slang in the board room. Whether this is good
or bad is a matter for debate, but rest assured that if street slang
were to become the standard, something else would take its place as the
variant considered contemptible or quaint among the new elite.
It is clear that languages change--constantly, inexorably, and in
different simultaneous ways. There is no Language Tree, rather
there is a Language Web (of sorts). The degree to which a
language remains constant is in great part reliant on the liturature
extant in that language. The more literature there is, the more
stable the language, meaning that the language is more resistant to
change. But again, liturature doesn't do this alone. What
if no one reads? Education in reading such liturature stabilizes
the language as well, but that means the prescription of rules.
All this circularity is simply meant to point out that--without
sounding like a spineless egalitarian--both change and stability are
required. Therefore, both prescription and innovation are
required in order for a language (or dialect) to thrive.
Linguistic genocide, as you put it, should be a crime against humanity
because it restricts the degree to which people can communicate.
Languages should never be deliberately extinguished, rather they should
be more fully embraced within the context of the importing
language. Where would English be without the Spanish word
machismo? There's no English equivalent (it must be defined by a
phrase rather than a word). What would you call the internet if
you couldn't use new technical words? But then, how would you be
able to make your case in this forum without rules of usage and grammar?