Putonghua-ization or Cantonization in Guangdong?

[Koneko]

Mark Yong,

Blimey, are you my long-lost brother?

We're both are Hakka, Malaysian-born Chinese!

So does your accent really sound Malaysian Chinese?

Hmm... Mine is but I can change easily to blend into Northerner's accent.

A tedious camouflage for my tongue though...

K.

[Koneko]

I came across this interesting article on "Malaysian Chinese? Chinese Malaysian?".

Looks like it's politically incorrect to address ourselves, Malaysian Chinese, Mark Yong.

But I was taught so, even at my Chinese primary to call ourselves 马来西亚华裔 not 华裔马来西亚人.

Accordingly, I still have "immigrant mentality"! Ha ha...

K.

[Mark Yong]

Koneko wrote: So does your accent really sound Malaysian Chinese?

I assume you are referring to my spoken Cantonese. Well, it really depends on what you define as a "Malaysian Chinese" accent. There are several possibilities:

1. As many Cantonese speakers in Malaysia are not of Cantonese-origin, many speaking mainly the 閩 Min dialects (Hokkien, Teochew) at home, they end up with distorted tones for the pronunciation of certain words, and are also unaccustomed to the Cantonese dialect's 'long vowels' (e.g. the distinction between 'jan' 鎮 and 'jaan' 讚, both having the same tone).

2. Some 'pure' Cantonese speakers in Malaysia are a little over-zealous in their attempt to make their Cantonese sound exactly like Hong Kong Cantonese, even to the extent of adopting the Hong Kong intonations and vocabulary.

For me, I adopt the middle road. While I make a conscious attempt to ensure that my pronunciation and tone is 100% correct, I make no attempt to "Hong Kong-ise" it. For instance, I will not refer to 'police station' as 'mata-liu' the way many Malaysians do, but neither will I adopt the Hong Kong terminology 'ch'aai gun' 差館, either. I stick to 'ging-chaat-guk' 警察局. And where Hong Kong Cantonese tend to drop the ng- beginnings (e.g. 我 becomes 'or'), I stick to 'ngor'.

As for my spoken Mandarin, it is characteristically Southern in accent. Like most "Southerners", I cannot distinguish the zh-/z- and ch-/c- beginnings, my sh-/s- beginnings are not well-distinguished, nor is my distinction between tone 1 (high flat) and tone 4 (high falling) consistent. Vocabulary-wise, I tend not to use characteristically-Northern words, e.g. I prefer 很好 to 蠻好.

And I am darn proud of my Southern identity!

[Ian_Lee]

but neither will I adopt the Hong Kong terminology 'ch'aai gun' 差館, either. I stick to 'ging-chaat-guk' 警察局.

差館 is not a Hong Kong Cantonese terminology. It is a term that Hong Kong inherited from Song Dynasty 1,000 years ago.

Let's hear what Mainland bigmouth 王朔 said about 差館:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/4a49177c010008kf

王朔：有一种说法，因为他里头好多宋朝的文言，你比如他管警察叫差人，叫差馆。

Other terms like 银纸 which people in Hong Kong commonly use is also a term inherited from Song Dynasty.

[Mark Yong]

Ian_Lee wrote: 差館 is not a Hong Kong Cantonese terminology. It is a term that Hong Kong inherited from Song Dynasty 1,000 years ago.

Oh, dear... that was a bad mistake on my part.

In answer to the original question of this thread, I guess this is an example of "putonghua-isation" of the Cantonese dialect (I suppose 警察局 is a modern Mandarin concoction). And ironically, 差館 may actually be a more 'authentic' term.

In general, Cantonese has been much more conservative than Mandarin, having retained the use of many basic terminologies that have now become literal in Mandarin. Some examples I can think of are 食 (eat, Mandarin uses 吃), 飲 (drink, Mandarin uses 喝), 面 (face, Mandarin uses 臉), 行 (walk, Mandarin uses 走).

My rebellious streak often prompts me to use these now-archaic terminologies whenever I correspond with my mainland colleagues, either via e-mail or instant messaging, e.g. I would often write 飲酒 instead of 喝酒, 不必 instead of 不用, 無 in place of 沒 and 勿 in place of 別 wherever possible.

The effect of the Mandarin-isation of Cantonese seems more apparent in modern terminologies coined over the last century for technological, commercial and political usage. With Hong Kong retaining Cantonese as the lingua franca, while keeping in pace with the development of these modern terminologies, the Cantonese dialect has managed to remain a living language. Regretfully, the same cannot be said for many of the other dialects, where speakers would generally code-switch to the Mandarin pronunciation of such modern terminologies in speech.

[atitarev]

...My rebellious streak often prompts me to use these now-archaic terminologies whenever I correspond with my mainland colleagues, either via e-mail or instant messaging, e.g. I would often write 飲酒 instead of 喝酒, 不必 instead of 不用, 無 in place of 沒 and 勿 in place of 別 wherever possible...

I heard feedback from my colleagues from mainland China. They say, HKers and Taiwanese can't write in modern Chinese but we still understand what they write. For them it's harder to understand us, so we sometimes please them by writing it the old way.

[Mark Yong]

atitarev wrote: I heard feedback from my colleagues from mainland China. They say, HKers and Taiwanese can't write in modern Chinese but we still understand what they write. For them it's harder to understand us, so we sometimes please them by writing it the old way.

Putting aside colloquial written Cantonese in Hong Kong, I had the impression that formal written Chinese in Hong Kong is based on the grammar of Standard Mandarin. At least, that is what I gather from the handful of Hong Kong-based magazine articles that I have read in the past. Unless what you mean is that there are less elements of Beijing influence in the style of writing and the words used.

On the subject of written Chinese in Taiwan, I gather that while the grammar is also generally based on modern Mandarin, the writing style has much more elements of the classical language (grammar and vocabulary) compared to written modern Mandarin on the mainland.

[Mugi]

Mark Yong wrote: Vocabulary-wise, I tend not to use characteristically-Northern words, e.g. I prefer 很好 to 蠻好.

Something is not quite right here - did you mean to say that you "tend to use..."? Or perhaps you "prefer 蠻好 to 很好"?

很好 is standard Mandarin, where as 蠻好 is southern (at least from a northern perspective). 蠻好 is typically used by Taiwanese and native 呉 speakers when speaking Mandarin. I've personally never heard 蠻好 north of the Yangtze, except from immigrants from the south. 很 is distinctly Mandarin (in fact I don't know of a cognate in any other dialect group).

[atitarev]

I think it's just a matter of what is thought to be acceptable by the majority. Like in any language - it may not be standard, not traditional, whatever but it's used by majority and it becomes standard.

I had the impression that

written Chinese in Hong Kong is based on the grammar of Standard Mandarin.

I am aware that Hong Kong written form is based on standard Mandarin but it's somewhat different still. This version of Mandarin may be more standard and better but again, the majority uses a different standard.

From the learners' practical point of view, which style is best to learn or teach? The one that is used by majority of companies in China.

So, even Taiwan is affected. Mainland words are well-known now in Taiwan and sometimes replace the words used before, although the influence may not be as big as in Guangdong or Hong Kong. I talked to young guys from Taiwan, they were actually treating this as a positive trend.

In my opinion, varieties of standard Mandarin is OK but they probably should be merged and differences be treated as synonyms or alternatives, except for cases where it should be just one case, e.g. 新西兰 / 新西蘭 Xīnxīlán or 纽西兰 / 紐西蘭 Niǔxīlán, which version to use must be agreed on. I am surprised it hasn't become a legal issue yet. In law, documents should be precised, so are Hong Kong and PRC's documents mutually accepted?

[Jive Turkey]

I heard feedback from my colleagues from mainland China. They say, HKers and Taiwanese can't write in modern Chinese but we still understand what they write. For them it's harder to understand us, so we sometimes please them by writing it the old way.

What a crock, especially regarding Taiwanese people. Sure, a good number of HKers seem to have some trouble writing good SMC since they don't really know its corresponding spoken language, but to say that HKers can't write SMC is a wack generalization. I suspect your mainland colleagues are just being snobs. Keep in mind that many Chinese see the use of SMC and PTH as elements of modernization. To them, saying that people from a certain place can't write SMC or speak PTH (regardless of whether it is true or not)=that place is a backward shithole. By my standards, some places or practices in Taiwan or HK are backward, but hardly so when compared to the mainland.

In my opinion, varieties of standard Mandarin is OK but they probably should be merged and differences be treated as synonyms or alternatives, except for cases where it should be just one case, e.g. 新西兰 / 新西蘭 Xīnxīlán or 纽西兰 / 紐西蘭 Niǔxīlán, which version to use must be agreed on. I am surprised it hasn't become a legal issue yet. In law, documents should be precised, so are Hong Kong and PRC's documents mutually accepted?

Why in the world would it be a legal issue? Nobody gets confused if you use one or the other. Why try to control something that not only defies attempts to control it but also does not need to be controlled?

[gato]

They say, HKers and Taiwanese can't write in modern Chinese but we still understand what they write. For them it's harder to understand us, so we sometimes please them by writing it the old way.

Maybe they meant the difference between simplified and traditional characters. It does seem that those in Taiwan have a harder time reading simplified characters than mainlanders reading traditional characters, maybe because mainlanders get more exposure to traditional characters (like in HK movie subtitles).

The other major difference in written Chinese, as Mark mentioned above, is that HK and Taiwan use much more classical Chinese elements, but I doubt HKer and Taiwanese find it hard to read modern Chinese. It would also be difficult for most mainlanders to write in a more classical Chinese way because most of them don't have that experience.

[atitarev]

I know it sounds arrogant, it's also arrogant to try to use words, which for sure are not used or may not be understood in the North. A bit of too much pride on both sides seems to cause some communication problems. Please refrain from rude words. You sound too snobby but call them snobs.

As for the legal issues, they were discussed in these forums, some about difference in usage simplified/traditional characters where some officers may not know the other version. It's not just characters but word and character choice.

With the country or other geopgraphical proper names, it's not about controlling but agreeing what is correct, since may foreign names have been already standardised and written the same way now in both mainland and Hong Kong. Agreeing what is correct or standard would also be important for making textbooks, etc. I am not going to explain the importance of standardisation. You may call New Zealand what you wish but the maps, references indexes should have one entry.

[atitarev]

Maybe they meant the difference between simplified and traditional characters. It does seem that those in Taiwan have a harder time reading simplified characters than mainlanders reading traditional characters, maybe because mainlanders get more exposure to traditional characters (like in HK movie subtitles).

Also true, but this is not what I meant. In mainland China there's not much brainwashing against traditional characters, as far as I know and you'll find monuments with old writing, etc however, you ask an HKer or a Taiwanese person - they usually start their talk about "breaking Chinese traditions", etc.

I doubt HKer and Taiwanese find it hard to read modern Chinese.

I heard the reverse many times but for sure there's a large percentage of people on both sides who don't know the other system.

[wai ming]

I think we've gone way off topic here.

I do agree with JiveTurkey though; I think many Taiwanese people and Hong Kong people would be offended if you told them they can't write in Modern (Standard) Chinese. Just because their style of writing tends to include more classical elements than the style of writing prevalent on the Mainland, doesn't make their Chinese writing less "modern" or "standard". Moreover, it certainly doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding Chinese written by Mainlanders.

Bear in mind that acceptable usage and common usage are not the same thing, and that theoretically, anyone with an equivalent level of Chinese education (including classical Chinese studies) should be able to understand or write using this more classically-influenced style.

[Jive Turkey]

I know it sounds arrogant, it's also arrogant to try to use words, which for sure are not used or may not be understood in the North. A bit of too much pride on both sides seems to cause some communication problems. Please refrain from rude words. You sound too snobby but call them snobs.

So it's arrogant for southerners to use words that are natural to them, but it isn't arrogant for northerners to expect all to follow their language practices and habits? It's hardly a matter of pride when people happen to use language differently. It's the nature of language.

As for the legal issues, they were discussed in these forums, some about difference in usage simplified/traditional characters where some officers may not know the other version. It's not just characters but word and character choice.

If you are referring to the Pakistani judge in HK who tossed out an ICAC vs defendent case because the defendent claimed to be illiterate in traditional Chinese, then you are falling back on the reasoning of a man who does not read any Chinese. I'll also note that even if one were to consider that magistrate's judgement as safe, it in no way supports the notion that only one form or system for everything should be used. It just means that HK coppers should keep simplified character documents on hand so that corrupt scumbags can't go before a non-Chinese judge and argue innocence by illiteracy.

You cited an example, New Zealand, which I assume you had a reason for citing. Please show me one legal dispute from any Chinese jurisdiction where use of one form caused confusion.

With the country or other geopgraphical proper names, it's not about controlling but agreeing what is correct, since may foreign names have been already standardised and written the same way now in both mainland and Hong Kong. Agreeing what is correct or standard would also be important for making textbooks, etc. I am not going to explain the importance of standardisation. You may call New Zealand what you wish but the maps, references indexes should have one entry.

To put it bluntly, you have a backward, totalitarian view of what language is. People like you don't seek "correctness" or "standardization" for any functional purpose, but instead seem to seek standardization just for the sake of standardization.

[atitarev]

I agreed that Northerners remarks were arrogant but so are yours, aren't they. What is natural for one is not natural for the other.

You say it's not OK for an officer not to know traditional characters but is it OK not to know simplified?

I didn't say the name of a country caused a dispute but different spelling of foreign names cause confusion, which is understandable for rare names but can be rectified by agreement on well-known names. Don't call me backward, this is rude!

I am out of this discussion, which leads nowhere and I don't want to read your abuses.

[Jive Turkey]

You say it's not OK for an officer not to know traditional characters but is it OK not to know simplified?

Traditional characters are the norm in HK. I didn't say anywhere that it is OK that a cop in HK does not know simplified characters. Whether a cop learns to read them is completely up to him/her. Whether a HK cop knows simplified characters or not was never the issue in any post i've made.

I didn't say the name of a country caused a dispute but different spelling of foreign names cause confusion, which is understandable for rare names but can be rectified by agreement on well-known names. Don't call me backward, this is rude!

Who has ever been confused by the example you gave? If language were standardized to the degree that non-confusing examples like the one you cited were eliminated, then I fear that nobody would be allowed to use language creatively ever again. That 1.3+billion people speak or write their "common" language with variety is not a problem in need of rectification through more standardization. It is completely natural for this situation to exist.

[Mark Yong]

Mugi wrote: Something is not quite right here - did you mean to say that you "tend to use..."? Or perhaps you "prefer 蠻好 to 很好"?

Oops... another mistake on my part. Using 很 instead of 蠻 is an exception to my normal preference for un-Northern words. I only picked up 蠻 very recently in correspondences with native 吳 Wu speakers.

[Ian_Lee]

I doubt HKer and Taiwanese find it hard to read modern Chinese.

But how do you define "modern Chinese"?

The Chinese language and literature course that I took in secondary school (Grade 7-12) in HK covered both classical Chinese as well as modern Chinese. And most of the articles in modern Chinese textbook are excerpted from writings by famous scholars like Hu Shih or 冰心.

All these writers were non-Cantonese speakers. So how can anyone say that HKers find it hard to read modern Chinese?

If "modern Chinese" is defined as those literatures written by the generation that are brought up after '49 like Wang Shuo, then I have to admit that a lot of the terms used by those writers are really hard to fathom by outsiders who have not lived under that social system.

Anyway, HK author Jin Yong's writings have been excerpted into Mainland High School's Chinese language textbook.

[Ian_Lee]

Atitarev:

It is a good idea to officially standardize the translation of a foreign place name. But whether the masses will follow is another matter.

For example, a lot of maps still label Vladivostok as 海參威. And if you browse any newspaper published in HK or Taiwan, 海參威 is used whenever Vladivostok is mentioned.

And if you talk to people from Mainland China, most of them also just know 海參威 instead of that 7-character official Chinese name for Vladivostok.

Old habits die hard.