# Chinese languages and dialects



## dihydrogen monoxide

Why are languages spoken in China considered dialects when they could be languages on their own. Their distinction is not of a dialect. Someone with a knowledge of Standard could easily/hardly understand some dialect. But in Chinese it is not the case. They could be languages on their own and if they are so different from each other why do they have dialect status?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Why are languages spoken in China *considered (1)* *dialects (2)* when they could be *languages (2)* on their own. Their distinction is not of a dialect. Someone with a knowledge of Standard could easily/hardly understand some dialect. But in Chinese it is not the case. They could be languages on their own and if they are so different from each other why do they have dialect status?


The language versus dialect pseudo discussion once again?

Before we go on with this, I'd like to ask you:

1. Who did the considering and in which context?
Sources, please.

2. What was their definition of language and their definition of dialect?
Sources, please.

3. Do their definitons match with the ones given by trained linguists?
Sources, please.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Athaulf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Why are languages spoken in China considered dialects when they could be languages on their own. Their distinction is not of a dialect. Someone with a knowledge of Standard could easily/hardly understand some dialect. But in Chinese it is not the case. They could be languages on their own and if they are so different from each other why do they have dialect status?



As in countless other cases, the issue of "languages" vs. "dialects" is a political, not a linguistic one. Just google for a few relevant keywords, and you should get a pretty clear overview of the situation.


----------



## Maroseika

Who first said: a dialect is a language without army?


----------



## Athaulf

Maroseika said:


> Who first said: a dialect is a language without army?



The insight is commonly attributed to Max Weinreich, but its real origins are obscure.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Athaulf said:


> As in countless other cases, the issue of "languages" vs. "dialects" is a political, not a linguistic one. Just google for a few relevant keywords, and you should get a pretty clear overview of the situation.


 
I would disagree. Where dialect is spoken is just a coincidence. There were no border at that times. So Kajkavian could be Slovenian dialect but since it's spoken in Croatia, because the speakers settled in the territory it is now considered Slovenian dialect.
Politics has nothing to do with dialect. First there were all dialects, a dialect becomes standard language. Standard language is an artificial form. A dialect becomes language when it has its grammar, simply put. A language evolves from dialect. Only one dialect gets the choice of becoming Standard language. Where is a dialect spoken doesn't matter.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The language versus dialect pseudo discussion once again?
> 
> Before we go on with this, I'd like to ask you:
> 
> 1. Who did the considering and in which context?
> Sources, please.
> 
> 2. What was their definition of language and dialect?
> Sources, please.
> 
> 3. Do their definitons match with the ones given by trained linguists?
> Sources, please.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 
I asked my professor about this, because he quoted that Cantonese,Wu and so on are languages in China. And I corrected him that they were not languages, but dialects and if you look at any source or book, these are considered as dialects and he agreed. And then I replied if they are so different from each other, how come they are dialects and he said it's because of the Chinese imperialistic regime. According to his opinions they should be languages and mine because they aren't mutually intelligible at any level and sometimes they must communicate with palms by immitating a drawing of a hanzi with the finger on the palm.


----------



## Athaulf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I would disagree. Where dialect is spoken is just a coincidence. There were no border at that times. So Kajkavian could be Slovenian dialect but since it's spoken in Croatia, because the speakers settled in the territory it is now considered Slovenian dialect.
> Politics has nothing to do with dialect. First there were all dialects, a dialect becomes standard language. Standard language is an artificial form. A dialect becomes language when it has its grammar, simply put. A language evolves from dialect. Only one dialect gets the choice of becoming Standard language. Where is a dialect spoken doesn't matter.



Um... and what exact factors determine which standard will be promoted and mandated in administration, education, judiciary, government-run media, etc., and which standard national language the speakers of various non-standard dialects are going to identify with? 

You might also find the concept of Ausbausprache/Abstandsprache/Dachsprache interesting.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I asked my professor about this, because he quoted that Cantonese,Wu and so on are languages in China.
> And I corrected him that they were not languages, but dialects


Corrected him? On which basis?



> and if you look at any source or book


Any source or book? That's weird. The few books I have read -- by a kind of magical coincidence -- all omit that very piece of information.
So, which one do you mean, and what's the context?



> And then I replied if they are so different from each other, how come they are dialects and he said it's because of the Chinese imperialistic regime.


Then your discourse shifted from a linguistic context to a political context. See also the remarks by Athaulf and Maroseika. 
But a political statement doesn't change the linguistic mainstream ideas.



> According to his opinions they should be languages and mine because they aren't mutually intelligible at any level and sometimes they must communicate with palms by immitating a drawing of a hanzi with the finger on the palm.


Apart from the rather weird general criteria you use, the "writing" on the handpalm isn't really an indication. I saw that kind of exchange between two speakers of the same Chinese language from the same city.

So, that leaves my three questions unanswered.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Athaulf said:


> Um... and what exact factors determine which standard will be promoted and mandated in administration, education, judiciary, government-run media, etc., and which standard national language the speakers of various non-standard dialects are going to identify with?


 
Language in grammars are always based on a dialect so the grammarian decides which form he should take and if it gets accepted than the process go on. 
The speakers are going to identify themselves with the dialect they speak and when the dialect becomes Standard language they will identify themselves with both dialect and language. Like someone would identify themselves as Croatian language, kajkavian dialect/branch.
Language is an artificial form, because language is made so we could indetify ourselves with and with which we are going to be educated.
Language in grammars are made so we could all understand each other, so we could have a unifed speech/language, to preserve the language and so on.
Grammars of language decide everything and language in grammars is based on dialect which became standard thanks to the grammar. Written grammar makes the factors. Nobody's mother tongue is Standard language and that is the language in the grammar. In grammar the dialect was twisted a bit, dialect was first a little adapted and then it became language.
This is just my humble opinion, but would you have a standard language if it weren't for grammars?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Politics has nothing to do with dialect.


And then you start about standard languages. I hope you spot the contradiction...



> First there were all dialects, a dialect becomes standard language. Standard language is an artificial form. A dialect becomes language when it has its grammar, simply put.


What do you mean by that (apart that your mixing at least three distinct meanings of language and dialect in one phrase)? Do you also claim that dialects don't have grammar or a grammar?



> A language evolves from dialect.


Says who? Where? Which (modern) linguist would ever write something like that and expect to be taken seriously? Sources, please.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Corrected him? On which basis?
> 
> Based on what I've read and I know Chinese has dialects. Well, corrected him is not the word, I pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> Any source or book? That's weird. The few books I have read -- by a kind of magical coincidence -- all omit that very piece of information.
> So, which one do you mean, and what's the context?
> 
> Not any but most of them and he agreed on the subject that they have a status of dialect in China.
> 
> 
> Then your discourse shifted from a linguistic context to a political context. See also the remarks by Athaulf and Maroseika.
> But a political statement doesn't change the linguistic mainstream ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the rather weird general criteria you use, the "writing" on the handpalm isn't really an indication. I saw that kind of exchange between two speakers of the same Chinese language from the same city.
> 
> He said that they help themselves like this, especially if they are from different cities.
> 
> So, that leaves my three questions unanswered.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 


Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> And then you start about standard languages. I hope you spot the contradiction...
> 
> Point it out to me.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by that (apart that your mixing at least three distinct meanings of language and dialect in one phrase)? Do you also claim that dialects don't have grammar or a grammar?
> 
> Dialects have grammar but not written until recent times. In fact Standard language is based on a dialect, that's what schoolbooks say about the Slovene first grammar. I know that's not a good source, but all agree on this. All varieties on languages have grammar, be it written or not. I mean standard language, because this is the one used in schools, the one you are supposed to use in speeches, the one you are being taught in in schools. Maybe I am mixing them.
> 
> 
> Says who? Where? Which (modern) linguist would ever write something like that and expect to be taken seriously? Sources, please.
> 
> Which was first language or dialect? And why can't you accept the fact that there are dialects, based on your conversation, you think there are only languages. So if politics says there are only languages, then you'll say, there are no dialects. So if politics says there are only dialects, then you'll say there are no languages.
> I think I've entered a territory that maybe I'm not all familiar with, but please correct me, as I've said, this is just an opinion, educated guess, if you prefer.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Has anyone ever tried to disprove the theory of politics making a dialect and that phrase about dialect from Weinrich?


----------



## jmx

This thread sounds like a conversation in different, not mutually intelligible languages. Frank06 and Athaulf use _linguistics-speak_ (as I would try to do too), while Dihydrogen Monoxide speaks the common-man language. 

It's a pity but in many countries, certainly in Spain, linguistics hasn't permeated the University limits, and the general public still believes in ideas that should be considered _old superstitions_ but continue thriving in the educational system or the media.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Has anyone ever tried to disprove the theory of politics making a dialect and that phrase about dialect from Weinrich?


Can you please clarify? What do you mean?



jmartins said:


> This thread sounds like a conversation in different, not mutually intelligible languages.




Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

And how does politics fit into all this? How does someone decide what is going to be a dialect or not? Imagine this situation. If you discover a writing which is known to you of a language you know sometime in the past, written on a clay, how would you know you are dealing with a dialect or a language?

I mean is there someone who doesn't agree with the statement of Weinrich and with the thinking of politics not making a dialect?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


dihydrogen monoxide said:


> If you discover a writing which is known to you of a language you know sometime in the past, written on a clay, how would you know you are dealing with a dialect or a language?


I am so sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Not one historical linguist would even consider such a question (or distinction).
To linguists, maybe apart from socio-linguists, the language-dialect "distinction" is irrelevant.
You can find some good information in e.g. Trask: _Language. The basics_, 2nd edition.



> I mean is there someone who doesn't agree with the statement of Weinrich and with the thinking of politics not making a dialect?


Wheinrich's statement "A language is a dialect with an army and navy" was a boutade. 
If you'd take it literally, iwould exclude, a.o. Luxembourgish, since Luxemburg doesn't have a navy. 

I hope this example is nifty enough. It only serves to indicate that boutades aren't supposed to be taken literally and hence aren't supposed to be proved or disproved.


Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

jmartins said:


> This thread sounds like a conversation in different, not mutually intelligible languages. Frank06 and Athaulf use _linguistics-speak_ (as I would try to do too), while Dihydrogen Monoxide speaks the common-man language.
> 
> Indeed it may seem so, but I understand what they are saying, I understand their linguistics-speak.
> 
> It's a pity but in many countries, certainly in Spain, linguistics hasn't permeated the University limits, and the general public still believes in ideas that should be considered _old superstitions_ but continue thriving in the educational system or the media.


 


Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am so sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Not one historical linguist would even consider such a question (or distinction).
> To linguists, maybe apart from socio-linguists, the language-dialect "distinction" is irrelevant.
> You can find some good information in e.g. Trask: _Language. The basics_, 2nd edition.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 
I agree with you on the part of socio-linguists. So only socio-linguists care about language-dialect distinction. Then maybe I should accept the fact that we have only languages.


----------



## Athaulf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Has anyone ever tried to disprove the theory of politics making a dialect and that phrase about dialect from Weinrich?



It's not a "theory", but an observation of clear empirical facts. As you yourself wrote, in the old times before government-run universal education and mass literacy, and before the emergence modern nation-states and modern categories of nationality/ethnicity, people spoke local dialects that formed more or less smooth continuums over large areas, and they usually didn't identify with any collectives similar to modern nationalities. 

Later, the institutions of modern nation-states evolved, requiring the average person to do more and more business with remote and impersonal government officials and instituting government-run public education. At the same time, modern ethnic groups emerged as the dominant way of collectivist identification. This resulted in two ideas that paved the way for the emergence of modern standard languages: (1) that each nation-state should have a well-defined official language, in which it is supposed to conduct business with its citizens and run public education, and (2) that each ethnic group should have its standard language, and people should consider the native language of their area as a substandard dialect of this standard language. 

Some of these standard languages are based on the local dialect of some areas at some point in history (e.g. Parisian French), and some are more artificial constructs, more remote from any historical local dialect (e.g. Standard German). Some of them were (and still are) strictly planned by centralized government institutions (e.g. French or Spanish), while some emerged as a more loose _de facto_ standard (e.g. English). These are well-known and indisputable historical facts. 

Now, ask yourself: which factors have determined what the standard language of each nation-state looks like? Also, for each local population, which factors have determined the broader modern ethnic group and standard national language with which they identify themselves? Do you realize that most of these outcomes were determined by politics?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


dihydrogen monoxide said:


> I agree with you on the part of socio-linguists. So only socio-linguists care about language-dialect distinction. Then maybe I should accept the fact that we have only languages.


I can imagine that socio-linguists care about the _perceived_ distinctions between dialects and languages, (by which you probably mean standard languages? It's never clear what you mean when you use the word language).

But it would already be good accept that the words "language" and "dialect" can have very different meanings depending on the context. That's why I asked you in vain, several times, about the context. So far, at least as far as I understood, you seem to mix them up constantly.


Now, your original question was:


> why do they have dialect status?


 
Since that is not a linguistic question but a political one, you should ask a _politician_. Preferably a Chinese politican.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Well, you see, as I've said and you too that some standard languages are based on local dialect, so that means if it weren't for local dialect than there would be no standard language, in some cases like Parisian French. First you acquire a dialect than you  acquire a standard language. This is where my statement lies, that first there must've been a dialect or some form of substandard language.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I can imagine that soicio-linguists care about the perceived distinctions between dialects and languages, (by which you probably mean standard languages? It's never clear what you mean when you use the word language).
> 
> But it would already be good accept that the words "language" and "dialect" can have very different meanings depending on the context. That's why I asked you in vain, several times, about the context. So far, at least as far as I understood, you seem to mix them up constantly.
> 
> I mean standard language when speaking of language. But I don't mix the distinction between language and dialect. If you prefer standard form and substandard form. I am not saying that dialect is a slang or jargon, I am saying that dialect is a substandard form of language, low register, spoken by people in villages, who don't or do have education, that is, uneducated people. I am refering to a speech community that speak in dialect. That means when I talk about language I mean standard language, the one being taught in schools, one in which books are written and so on. Dialect in this sense is, a form of speech/language spoken in villages with no written grammar, spoken by uneducated people.
> Dialect in this sense is the speech of farmers and village folk. Of course slang is another thing, but I am not mixing slang and dialect.
> I hope I made myself clear, but I am not mixing those up. Was this discussion really necessary in order for me to get an answer ask a politician?
> And your response wasn't good either because politician knows nothing about linguistics.
> 
> 
> Now, your original question was:
> 
> 
> Since that is not a linguistic question but a political one, you should ask a _politician_. Preferably a Chinese politican.
> 
> I thought this is a linguistic board not a political one. If it is not linguistic question why is it being discussed?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

*First of all, dihydrogen monoxide, can you please use the quote tags in a normal way. If you write your comments between the 






			tages, it's darn difficult to react to your posts.
		
Click to expand...

*


> *So, in stead of:*
> 
> 
> 
> abc
> reaction to abc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Please use the format*
> 
> 
> 
> abc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reaction to abc
> 
> *Thank you.*
> 
> So far for the moderator in me. Back to the poster.
> 
> 
> Secondly,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean standard language when speaking of language. But I don't mix the distinction between language and dialect. If you prefer standard form and substandard form. I am not saying that dialect is a slang or jargon, I am saying that dialect is a substandard form of language
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apart from the fact that you cannot find any linguistic source to back this up, this quote also indicates that you have some serious problems with both the terms _and_ with basic logic:
> 
> 1. you say: language = standard form.
> 2. you say: dialect = substandard form of language
> 
> And yet you claimed before:
> 3. standard languages are based on local dialect
> 
> I hope you see the contradiction.
> Substandard means below the standard. But, if there is no standard (yet), there is no substandard. And hence, according to you, no dialect, since you said that a dialect is a substandard form of language.
> So, how can a "standard language" be based upon a substandard form of that standard language, which doesn't exist yet???????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> low register, spoken by people in villages, who don't or do have education, that is, uneducated people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't mean this, do you? Please oh please, tell me that you are kidding.
> What exactly makes you think that the quote above reflects an educated opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am refering to a speech community that speak in dialect. That means when I talk about language I mean standard language, the one being taught in schools, one in which books are written and so on. Dialect in this sense is, a form of speech/language spoken in villages with no written grammar, spoken by uneducated people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dialect in this sense is the speech of farmers and village folk. Of course slang is another thing, but I am not mixing slang and dialect. I hope I made myself clear, but I am not mixing those up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, you surely clarified a few things about yourself, but not a single useful thing about language and dialects.
> 
> May I sugest some basic reading?
> Walt Wolfram, Larry Trask, any other linguist who wrote on this topic. Even Ask-a-linguist (search for dialect) can be useful. In this answer the linguist is even using the term 'standard dialect' when talking about a standard language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this discussion really necessary in order for me to get an answer ask a politician? And your response wasn't good either because politician knows nothing about linguistics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my. That's the point.
> To call Mandarin a language and let's say Hakka a dialect has nothing to do with linguistics. There is _no linguistic ground whatsoever_ to call Hakka a dialect and Mandarin a language (or vice versa).
> 
> Your inital post was very vague and you never gave anything that came close to a clarifying answer, but you claimed that "they have dialect status". Now, that status can only be 'granted' on extra-linguistic grounds, meaning reasons which have nothing, nada, zilch to do with linguistics.
> 
> Well, most often it's a political thing. Not a linguistic one. So if you genuinely wonder about the why question, you don't need to ask a linguist (because they will say that it doesn't make sense from a linguistic point of view).
> 
> Well, that leaves us with politicans...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this is a linguistic board not a political one. If it is not linguistic question why is it being discussed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you post it here in the first place??
> 
> 
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank
Click to expand...


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

No, I don't mean this about village folk. Substandard form sentence can be disregarded as I saw it now and really I didn't know what I was saying. I suggest you look up this source http://www.krysstal.com/langfams.html
How do we as linguists explain the dialects, for example Aeolian,Doric of Ancient Greek for example? I guess that this too is a political thing. But if dialects are a political thing why is there a connection with linguistics. Afterall, some linguists acknowledge dialects and some not, as you've said, historical linguists don't.
Maybe I've clarified things about myself, as I've said earlier, I am in an unfimilar territory in linguistics here and you've helped me here. So what politicians consider dialects we should consider languages, so if there are 6000 languages + what other call dialects that means, let's say there are 10000 languages and more.
I've looked up some sources and now I'll just say that there is a standard dialect and a standard language. So I'll say both forms are standard. And I've browsed some sites and they contradict each other, one saying languages evolved from dialect or dialects evolved from languages, ie. Languages first then dialects.
I guess I'll have to accept that dialects are politics. So you would say that if someone approaches you and speaks in Bruxelles version of French and you speak Standard French, you'd say he speaks a dialect, am I right? Correct me, if I'm not.
So, dialects is politics.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



dihydrogen monoxide said:


> So, dialects is politics.


No, not at all. 
The distinction "language versus dialect", that's politics (see below).

I found following technical definition of dialect (one of the many). Well, I also have to add that the author, Walt Wolfram, points out that this is a loose definition which might serve as a starting point:


> any variety of a language [F06: note, not standard language] that typifies a group of speakers within a language [F06: note, idem dito]... The particular social factors which correlate with dialect diversity range from simple geography to the complex notion of cultural identity


So a dialect, in its technical meaning, is _not_ even necessarily a _regional_ variant.

But the statement that "Mandarin is a language _while_ Hakka is a dialect", has little or nothing to do with linguistics. 
Many (if not most) of my Moroccan students tell me that "Arabic is a language while Berber is (only) a dialect". This has nothing to do with linguistics (and let's forget right now that there are several very different Berber languages/dialects).
In both statements above, the terms 'language' and 'dialect' indicate an assessment, an evaluation based upon extra-linguistic criteria (prestige, economics, hence politics, ...).
Nobody claims that these extra-linguistic criteria aren't important.

Middle Dutch _as such_ (to which you indirectly refered to) doesn't exist. Now, I do know that everybody uses the term Middle Dutch. 
But if linguists say that this or that text is written in "Middle Dutch", they simply say that this or that text is written in one of an interrelated group of dialects which all together are *labeled* _Middle Dutch, _or the Middle Dutch language_._ Because that's a simple label. It's a matter of agreement, determined by the context. The same, m.m. goes for "Ancient Greek", "Old High German", "Old English" etc.  

Take any grammar book on Old English, and in the first chapter, it will be pointed out what is meant by the language Old English: most of the times, at that stage, Old English is defined as a _collection_ of dialects dating from period X spoken in England. 
In the next chapter, the auther will normally explain in which of the dialects most texts have come to us. 
In the rest of the book, that particular Old English dialect (one of the few), on which the grammar chapters are based will be called Old English and called "a language". You see how context works here? There is no 'versus' here.

But you asked about Chinese languages...
Idem dito for Mandarin. In the Chinese forum, most people will probably use the word 'Mandarin' in the meaning of e.g. Pǔtōnghuà, the standardised form of, or rather based upon one, two, few, most (whatever) of the many Mandarin dialects. I think most people understand it this way. In this context, Mandarin is the same as Standard Mandarin, the same as the Mandarin language.

But I can imagine that there are linguists interested in Mandarin, but in a different way: Mandarin as a cover term for all Mandarin dialects, the "Mandarin language" meaning the group of Mandarin dialects. Again, the context is crucial.

This quote from Wikipedia might serve as an illustration:


> The phonology of *Standard Mandarin* is based on the Beijing dialect of the *Mandarin language*, *a large and diverse group of Chinese dialects* spoken across northern and southwestern China. The vocabulary is largely drawn from this group of dialects.


 
Anyway, my dear colleague of the Chinese Forum pointed out following links to other WR threads:
Chinese dialects (mainly about the political aspects with interesting observations on the Chinese terminology)
Chinese dialects... (mainly about Cantonese and Mandarin)
Mandarin: "language" or "dialect"? (mainly about 'language' and 'dialect')

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## yuechu

I think very simply put, (I don't believe it was mentioned in the above posts either), is that the Chinese languages/dialects are considered one _language_ because they are all written in the same script, with virtually the same word order/grammar in standard communications. The written language has always had a written standard with virtually no regional variations. (this is for the written language only) Traditionally, this was Classical Chinese/古文. Today, Mandarin has taken over this role. With the exception of Cantonese, most dialects cannot be completely written down in Chinese characters. Even Hokkien/Taiwanese (as in 台语) struggles with this problem in Taiwan, since new characters would have to be invented to represent certain words.
However, all Chinese text can be read in all dialects. (and would be pronounced differently)

Spoken Chinese, on the other hand, comprises many different dialects indeed from a linguistic point of view (and this is where politics may come into play as to whether the spoken languages are to be considered dialects or languages).


----------



## palomnik

I'm surprised that this discussion could return so much heat, as it has been raised earlier on the forum.

As both Athaulf and baosheng indicate, there are historical, and not just political reasons for the division of Chinese "dialects." In most complex premodern societies it was a necessary adjunct to civilization to have a "standard" language, hence Classical Arabic in the Middle East, Sanskrit (and later to a certain degree Farsi) in South Asia, Latin in medieval Europe and Classical Chinese in China. The "official" language of China, i.e., the language for governmental and cultural purposes, was literary Chinese until the collapse of the empire. Literary Chinese could be (and was) read in any spoken dialect. The fact that the "standard" version of spoken Chinese came to be associated with Mandarin was to some extent accidental and was due to the fact that the capital of China has been Beijing for most of the last seven hundred years.

Literary Chinese (which is not exactly the same as Classical Chinese, incidentally) has died a slow death; as recently as thirty years ago you could easily find newspapers in literary Chinese, at least in part, and particularly among the overseas communities, but now it is getting quite rare. The reaction against literary Chinese is usually dated to the May fourth movement in 1919, but it quickly became government policy. As a modern state, China needed to have a standard spoken language, and the Chinese government made a conscious decision that it would be Mandarin - on the whole not a bad decision, since it is the one dialect that is most widely spoken. This does not relegate all the other dialects to oblivion, and some dialects (most notably Cantonese) have a certain cachet of their own, particularly for overseas Chinese communities in Southeast Asia, and in fact there are various materials printed in Cantonese.

I don't think anybody is deceived into thinking that Mandarin is anything more than one dialect among many, albeit a big one, however.


----------



## TheHypez

Seems that you got yourself confused with Chinese languages. Chinese consists of 100 over dialects.

When you say Chinese language it means Mandarin and it cannot be mixed up with Chinese dialects. Mandarin and dialect have one thing in common is that they share the same character but sounds different.

For example, I want to say "I know already".

This is the simply Chinese characters: 我知道了.
In Mandarin, it would sounds like, wo zhi dao le.
In Chinese dialect, I take Hokkien for example is, wa zai lor.

In conclusion, they just sounds the different


----------



## vindy

It's true that there are many dialects in China. First of all, China has one majority Han,and fifty-five minorities(for example,Tibetan,Korean,they have their own language.) Among the majority Han, there are eight main dialect zones.The Mandarin, standard and official chinese,is based on the dialect of northern and west-southern china which is spoke by nearly 70% of the population.Take myself as an example,I am from Shanghai.The first language I learned was Shanghaiese the dialect first.But I speak Mandarin in school,in public etc.To me,I can understand many dialects of Wu chinese spoken in Yantze delta,the area around Shanghai.On the other hand, some dialects are totally unintelligible! 
We call them 'dialect' like Wu,Cantonese because all the languages share the same writing system,that is chinese caracters(although they did have their own two thousand years ago!!!) With Mandarin,we can communicate with each other! If Wu or Cantonese become one 'language', as a chinese,I disagree because that there will be about a hundred new 'languages' and that is terrible!


----------

