5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms period and modern dialects

[ala]

5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms period:

Modern Chinese dialect groups:

Modern Chinese dialect groups (more traditional grouping):

[woodcutter]

Keep posting this stuff ala, it's interesting.

Sorry to pour cold water on the maps again, but don't you think that the reason that the language map is coloured that way has as much to do with the history as with the languages? Since, as we saw from the other thread, Min is a right mess, for example.

[ala]

Keep posting this stuff ala' date=' it's interesting.

Sorry to pour cold water on the maps again, but don't you think that the reason that the language map is coloured that way has as much to do with the history as with the languages? Since, as we saw from the other thread, Min is a right mess, for example.[/quote']

The dialect groups were divided almost completely by linguistic reasons (although not necessarily based on mutual intellegibility). For example, the Wu dialects all have a very complete set of voiced consonants (something none of the other Chinese dialects have) and the most extensive tone sandhi (alterations). The Min dialects have 7 tones and also large amounts of tone sandhi, but they only have 2 voiced consonants (g, B). Wu dialects have the most consonants of all Chinese dialects, and nearly zero diphthongs; while Min dialects have the least amount of consonants (velar nasals become g's, etc), and a very rich diphthong inventory. Cantonese, like Mandarin, Gan and Hakka on the other hand have zero voiced consonants (and in Cantonese's case, nearly zero tone sandhi, while Mandarin has some limited tone sandhi). Core vocabulary and particles were also somewhat considered, for example, the plural in Wu dialects is 拉 "la" or 搭 "tak" (Shanghainese uses 拉 la exclusively, for example: 伊拉 yila = they); while in Min dialects it is "n"; in Cantonese it is 啲 "dei"; and in Mandarin, it is 们 "men" (which probably came from Mongolian). Also like 脱 (tha/the/tho, meaning "and"), 交关 (ciokue, meaning "many"), 结棍 (ciekun, meaning "great"), etc are only found in Wu dialects. Grammar is also rather different, for example Wu dialects are significantly more topic-clause and SOV oriented than other Chinese dialects and have several aspect particles (like progressive) not found in other dialects; Min dialect interrogatives are also very unique; Cantonese has no 把- sentence structure. etc.

[woodcutter]

It seems a rather odd use of the term "dialect" though. Not only are some of these dialects mutually unintelligible, some people in the same shaded areas cannot successfully communicate. Isn't that the most important factor in deciding whether they speak a different language or not? A "map of linguistic features" wouldn't grab the attention quite as well - but isn't that nearer the truth?

[skylee]

Cantonese has no 把- sentence structure. etc.

I would like to know more about this. Could you please provide more information?

Not only are some of these dialects mutually unintelligible, some people in the same shaded areas cannot successfully communicate. Isn't that the most important factor in deciding whether they speak a different language or not?

If they communicate successfully in writing in Chinese, does it count?

[ala]

It seems a rather odd use of the term "dialect" though. Not only are some of these dialects mutually unintelligible, some people in the same shaded areas cannot successfully communicate. Isn't that the most important factor in deciding whether they speak a different language or not? A "map of linguistic features" wouldn't grab the attention quite as well - but isn't that nearer the truth?

Yeah. That's why I prefer and usually use the terms "dialect group" or "topolect".

The Chinese term fangyan 方言 (poorly translated as "dialect" today) originally just meant "regional language". Before the 1900's, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese were also called 方言. Now this term refers to only Sinitic languages and real dialects like American English versus British English.

It is very strange that the Chinese academia recognizes only one language under the Sinitic half of the Sino-Tibetan language family (the largest in the family too). You could call it one of the most successful denials in modern Chinese history. It's almost like saying there is only one Romance language under the Indo-European family.

Sinitic:

Chinese

Tibeto-Burman:

Kamarupan

*Kuki-Chin-Naga

*Abor-Miri-Dafla

*Bodo-Garo

Himalayish

*Maha-Kiranti (includes Newari, Magar)

*Tibeto-Kinauri (includes Tibetan, Lepcha)

Qiangic

Jingpho-Nungish-Luish

*Kachinic (Jingpho)

*Nungish

*Luish

Lolo-Burmese-Naxi

Karenic

Baic

[ala]

I would like to know more about this. Could you please provide more information?

Cantonese is more Verb-Object oriented (more like English) than say Mandarin and Wu. The "ba" construction (which has more SOV characteristic) is much less frequently used in Cantonese than the other two dialects (and the very limited uses could have very well been borrowed recently). While the Mandarin "ba" has some limits, the Wu "nei" or "no" can be used for any verb and object.

“将”字句与VO句。

最能体现粤语强VO倾向的是有关“把/将”字句的比较。比起普通话

和其他方言来，粤语更多倾向VO句式，而受事前置的“将”字句远不如

普通话相应的“把”字句常见。郑定欧(1998)对此有一段概括：“a. 把

字句(指普通话的——引者)为强势的独立句式；几乎所有动宾句可以改

写成把字句，相反只有少数把字句能改写成动宾句；b. 将字句(指粤语

的——引者)为弱势的变体句式；几乎所有将字句可以改写成动宾句，相

反只有少数动宾句能改写成将字句”。

“把”字句的动因之一是让有定、已知的受事成分前置于动词，让

句子的重要信息特别是结果性成分占据句末的自然焦点位置(关于焦点的

位置，参阅刘、徐1998)。“把”字句又称处置句。所谓处置，就是对受

事施加某种影响并造成某种后果。由于“把”字句的受事通常是有定

的，多属于已知信息，所以不再属于被强调的焦点。而由动词及其补语

表示的处置行为及其结果才是要强调的新信息。不少人感觉到“把”字

句整体上的强调意味，于是说为了强调受事而把受事提前，这是认识上

的偏差。总体上，汉语不喜欢让有定的特别是已知的信息居于句末，这

正是汉语VO句型并不像在典型SVO语言中那样常用的重要原因之一。但

是，粤语在这一点上构成某种程度的例外，它受句子信息结构的影响不

大，所以“将”字句成为可用可不用的弱势句，而VO句型才是优势句

式。哪怕VO句型会导致有定或已知的受事位于句末，粤语也相当能接

受。比较(例句引自张双庆1997)：

(51) a. 普 把这些饭吃完。(?吃完这些饭) ~ 粤 食晒啲饭佢。

b. 普 把那些旧东西全扫掉了。(??全扫掉了那些旧东西) ~

粤 扫走晒啲旧嘢佢。

c. 普 快把那把钥匙还给我。(?快还我那把钥匙。) ~ 粤 快

啲还返条锁匙我。

d. 普 他们把那些水果都吃完了。(??他们全部吃完了那些水

果) ~ 粤 佢口地食晒啲生果。

例(51)各句的受事都是有定成分，它们在普通话中很难用VO句式来表

示。特别是当突出受事的全称属性时，普通话很排斥VO句式，如b、d两

句，而此时粤语照样很自然地采用VO句式。(51d)即使按括号中那样加上

“全部”，事实上也只容易理解为施事“他们”的全称而非受事“那些

水果”的全称，所以作为突出受事全称的句子其合法性仍是可疑的。另

一方面，假如不加“全部”，就说成“他们吃完了那些水果”，则句子

又不自足，似乎只是个时间背景分句，后面还必须有接续句，如“他们

吃完了那些水果，现在开始干活了”。而相应的VO式的粤语句，既突出

了全称义，又很自足，不必补上正句。可见其VO句的使用远比普通话常

见和自由。例(53)的前二句中在句末用了个复指的代词，据张双庆

(1997)，这是粤语用来突出“处置性”的手段，但这个代词并不是必需

的，例(51)后两句就没用。

另一方面，普通话“把”字句的结构形式和内部语义关系相当多

样，而粤语“将”字句的使用却受诸多限制。普通话中的大量“把”字

句都因为各种原因很难译成粤语相应的“将”字句，而适宜用VO句表

达，如(52)各句(分别取自上引张文、郑文)：

(52) a. 普 他穷得把房子都卖了。~ 粤 佢穷到要卖屋。(*佢穷到

将间屋卖咗。)

b. 普 把这些话再想一想。~ 粤 再念下呢番说话。(*再将呢

番说话念下。)

c. 普 把意思理解错了。~ 粤 误会咗个意思啦。(*将个意思

误会咗啦。)

d. 普 雨把衣服淋湿了。~ 粤 啲雨淋咗件衫。(*啲雨将件衫

淋湿咗啦。)

试分析(52)各句无法用“将”字句的原因。a句的行为虽然有处置性，但

情理上这是施事为情势所迫而为，并非主观意愿。b, c都是心理动词

句，行为性不强，宾语不是真正的受事(patient)，而是客体(theme)，

本身不受心理行为的影响。d则是非自主句，“雨”不是真正的施事

(agent)，而是外力(force)。换言之，粤语只有在自主的施事有意处置

典型的受事的情况下才允许用(还不是必须用)“将”字句。而(52)各句

的情况在普通话及多数汉语方言中都是不但可以而且倾向于使用“把/

将”字句，因为其受事或客体都是有定的。

其实，1.5节所分析的“形+名”或“形+量”结构作形容词谓语的用法，

虽然跟VO类型没有直接关系，但也反映了粤语语序较少受汉语焦点定位

规则的影响。在大部分地区的汉语中，已知、有定的成分倾向于前置，

所以VO句不一定处处通用。相应的，需要强调的新信息则强烈倾向于后

置，以便占据焦点位置。对于形容词谓语句来说，形容词是强调的对

象，所以会尽量后置，如“这个菜味道真好”、“他哥哥个头很高

大”、“他妹妹身材很瘦小”、“他做事手脚很快”等。粤语的“形+

名/量”结构作谓语时，也是强调形容词，但占据句末位置的却不是形容

词，而是名词或量词，所以这种结构与其他地方汉语使用者的语感大相

径庭。如“佢做嘢好快手”，强调的不是“手”而是“快”，“佢妹妹

好细粒嘅”强调的不是“粒”而是“细”，“呢间房好大间”强调的也

不是“间”而是“大”(“间”已在主语中出现一次)。这种句式在粤语

中的存在，说明粤语句法较少受话题-焦点语序规则的制约，这与VO句发

达而“将”字句微弱是一致的。

[skylee]

ala, I think we (or at least I) use 將 in Cantonese pretty much the same ways as 把 in Putonghua, which was why I doubted your saying "Cantonese has no 把- sentence structure." I think the Putonghua examples under (51) and (52) in the Chinese texts above can be changed to Cantonese using 將 in the same structure. And I don't think it is infrequently used (but I don't have any data to support this).

[ala]

ala, I think we (or at least I) use 將 in Cantonese pretty much the same ways as 把 in Putonghua, which was why I doubted your saying "Cantonese has no 把- sentence structure." I think the Putonghua examples under (51) and (52) in the Chinese texts above can be changed to Cantonese using 將 in the same structure. And I don't think it is infrequently used (but I don't have any data to support this).

I think that could all be a recent development (within the last 100, maybe just 50 years), under the influence of Standard Mandarin (Guoyu and later Putonghua). Because when Zhao Yuanren wrote about Cantonese, he also specifically mentioned this difference. Dialects in major urban regions tend to have grammar closer to whatever is written, and all legitimate formal writing is based on the Mandarin vernacular, so there is a converging force.

[Quest]

相应的，需要强调的新信息则强烈倾向于后

置，以便占据焦点位置。对于形容词谓语句来说，形容词是强调的对

象，所以会尽量后置，如“这个菜味道真好”、“他哥哥个头很高

大”、“他妹妹身材很瘦小”、“他做事手脚很快”等。粤语的“形+

名/量”结构作谓语时，也是强调形容词，但占据句末位置的却不是形容

词，而是名词或量词，所以这种结构与其他地方汉语使用者的语感大相

径庭。如“佢做嘢好快手”，强调的不是“手”而是“快”，“佢妹妹

好细粒嘅”强调的不是“粒”而是“细”，“呢间房好大间”强调的也

不是“间”而是“大”(“间”已在主语中出现一次)。

I dont quite agree with this last point. For example, 啲菜味道（唔错）好好，佢哥哥好高大，佢妹妹好瘦，佢做事手脚好快 are all often used. Also, 快手快脚，细粒，and 大间 are interpreted as standalone 形容词, they should not be broken into 快 + 手，细 + 粒，and 大+间。So there is no grammatical difference between 佢妹妹好瘦 and 佢妹妹好细粒, 细粒 is just another adjective that's formed with a 量词. (e.g. 大颗的钻石，大只佬 etc)

I agree with skylee that examples (51) and (52) are incorrect and that 将 can be used and is acceptable, however, there does exist a tendency to use the SVO constructions over the 将 construction in many situations. In some however, 将 is preferred -- 你帮我将张台搬过去。 你将个(轮)胎(盘)拧去左边。你将啲嘢搬晒入屋先。 你将件事由头到尾讲畀我听。

(51) brought up an interesting point -- the use of the pronoun 佢 at the end. Even in the 将 construction, 你将啲饭食晒佢。佢is still "needed".