Is there a Chinese syntax?

[zhouhana]

As just mentioned in another post, many different languages/dialects use hanzi in their writing language. I'm curious about the differences in grammar/syntax, especially between Mandarin and Cantonese. Is correctly written Mandarin also correctly written Cantonese? Can one say that Chinese languages/dialects in general share the same syntax?

[xiaocai]

Not the same but similar. Written mandarin may sound very strange if you read with cantonese pronunciation, in many cases, both syntax wise and vocabulary wise. I think the general trend is the more formal the writing gets, the more they become similar to each other. And I think it is the case for most other Chinese dialects.

[renzhe]

Can one say that Chinese languages/dialects in general share the same syntax?

No.

Each dialect of Chinese (often seen as separate languages by linguists) has its own syntax, grammar and vocabulary. Some of it is similar (obviously -- they are closely related, after all), but not all.

It's just that most Chinese dialects are never written, with most writing being done in standard written vernacular, which closely follows Mandarin syntax and vocabulary. So the official written language has a well-defined syntax and vocabulary, which is why written Chinese is understood almost everywhere. If you actually sit down and write Cantonese or Shanghainese (this is sometimes done), then the syntax and vocabulary are quite different.

[Ailuo]

Here is an example of some unique Cantonese characters for common words.

http://www.omniglot....e/cantonese.htm

[Hofmann]

Wikipedia lists three differences.

The first one "畀本書我" I find questionable because I (native Cantonese speaker) would never say that. It would come out as 畀我本書.

Classifiers, in my mind, do not replace possessive particles. Rather, the possessive particle is omitted.

I'd agree with the one about classifiers as articles, and they don't need 一 if it's one, e.g. "飲啖茶, 食個包."

The default way of comparison in Mandarin is using 比. I don't know the mechanics of it, but it seems like 比 is a verb and saying "他比我高" is saying "He, compared to me, is tall." In Cantonese "渠高過我", it seems 過 is a coordinate verb, therefore saying "He is tall (such that he) surpasses me."

[anonymoose]

The main difference between the various dialects of Chinese that make them mutually unintelligible is the pronunciation. Of course each dialect has its own set of vocabulary also, but much of the vocabulary is common. Since Chinese is written in characters rather then a purely phonetic script, this enables words of the same origin to retain a common written form, even where pronunciation has diverged. Take the character 人 for example. This word is spoken in many dialects (Mandarin, Shanghainese, Cantonese, Fujianese?), each having its own distinct pronunciation. If these dialects were written in phonetic script, the words would probably be unrecognisable to speakers of a different dialect, but the Chinese character provides a common way of representing the word in writing.

Essentially, formal written Chinese is based on standard Mandarin, and only on very rare and informal occasions are dialects actually written in dialectal form. (I'm not sure what the prevalence of written Cantonese in Hong Kong is, but you will never find written Shanghainese in formal settings in Shanghai. The only time you might come across written Shanghainese is in text messages or blogs, and even then it is uncommon.) Thus, speakers of dialect who write formal written Chinese are essentially writing in a different language. However, I don't think that is as difficult as it sounds because, as mentioned above, much of the grammar and vocabulary will be common with one's own dialect anyway, and since it is only written, one needn't be concerned with how to actually enunciate it (which is where the largest difference lies). Therefore, the only challenge in writing would be to grasp the (relatively small) differences in grammar and vocabulary. (And incidentally, even for native Mandarin speakers, one still has to grasp certain vocabulary and sentence patterns that are used almost exclusively in written form anyway.)

Nevertheless, for the mainland at least, I think this argument is rather moot, because nowadays everyone can speak Mandarin to a greater or lesser extent, and thus writing shouldn't pose the same challenge as in the past (and then most people were illiterate anyway).

[zhouhana]

That's very interesting! I learned a lot from this thread. Thanks for all your replies.

[Danny2312]

Not entirely similar. There are words and terms in certain dialects that make them extremely unique.

But, interestingly they can all blend with Mandarin, or putonghua, to give rise to a new language that is extremely unique and intriguing. If you ever come to Malaysia, try listening to the local Mandarin, it's a blend of several dialects (Cantonese, Hokkien, Hakka etc) and you'll realize how interesting it sounds.

[jkhsu]

Not entirely similar. There are words and terms in certain dialects that make them extremely unique.

What about written Mandarin in Malaysia? Is that pretty standard compared to written Mandarin in China or is it more similar to written colloquial Cantonese?

[Danny2312]

@jkhsu

The written Mandarin in Malaysia is standard and follows Mandarin Chinese that is used in China (exceedingly pure, a big contrast to our colloquial Chinese which is a blend of other languages), and we use simplified version, but most Chinese are able to read both simplified and traditional Chinese characters. The Chinese education in Malaysia is regarded as the best outside Mainland China and Taiwan, even surpassing Singapore.

But there are certain words that are translated from Malays and English that would discombobulate most native speakers in China and Taiwan, but can be well understood by Chinese in Singapore as well.

For anyone who would like to have a look of SPM (said to be equivalent to O-level) Chinese paper in Malaysia, please see the link below:

%20Negeri%20Sembilan%20SPM%20Trial%202011%20B.Cina%20(w%20ans).pdf"]http://209.141.60.141/spm/2011/n9/[edu.joshuatly.com]%20Negeri%20Sembilan%20SPM%20Trial%202011%20B.Cina%20(w%20ans).pdf

[Michaelyus]

It's interesting how different the syntax can be, but how in my observation they are quite easily marked out by their 'specialist' grammatical particles (more so than the varying object pronoun syntax or verb forms in conditional clauses of the Romance languages).

Wikipedia seems to have a few very readable comparative syntax charts for selected constructions in 厦门闽南语:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoy_dialect/Complement_constructions/simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoy_dialect/Negative_particles/simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoy_dialect/Cheat_sheet/simplified

I have no idea how accurate they are though.

[skylee]

The first one "畀本書我" I find questionable because I (native Cantonese speaker) would never say that. It would come out as 畀我本書.

Just to clarify that not all native speakers of Cantonese agree with this view.

[yeut]

:Posted 19 October 2011 - 12:23 PM

Quote

The first one "畀本書我" I find questionable because I (native Cantonese speaker) would never say that. It would come out as 畀我本書.

Just to clarify that not all native speakers of Cantonese agree with this view.

===========

I agree with Skylee. I have heard more 畀本書我 than 畀我本書.

[Michaelyus]

Hmmmm... I actually agree with skylee and yeut (and Wikipedia) above, though from the point of view of those speaking Cantonese in Britain. Especially 畀錢我啦！I have never heard this with the other syntax.

I believe hō͘ [hoo7/hor7] (conventionally written as 予 though etymologically unconnected) in Minnan has the same syntax as 給 in Mandarin.