Header Image courtesy of Flickr user Pasu Eu Yeung
Intra-cultural Tensions: Dialectal Attitudes in China
By: Jesse Wang
Emory students Jingru Zhao and Donald Li assert that Mandarin Chinese should be the predominant dialect taught in Chinese-language pedagogy. They argue that since many Chinese dialects are mutually incomprehensible, teaching Mandarin provides a means for communication among different regions throughout China. In contrast, Emory student Mengqi Liu notes the shortcomings of having the ability to speak only Mandarin, relating the discrimination she endured in China due to her inability to speak Cantonese. Considering each viewpoint, I support the notion that establishing Mandarin in Chinese-language pedagogy as both a standard dialect and lingua franca is both a necessary and effective way to transcend linguistic barriers between Chinese dialect groups. That being said, I also qualify this stance by exploring the negative implications of adopting any standard dialect, as doing so automatically places greater value on the established dialect over others, creating the possibility for false stereotypes and intra-cultural tensions to occur. In turn, I also encourage the study of Chinese subcultures and non-Mandarin dialects in Chinese-language curricula. While these two stances seem to contradict one another, I pose that they can simultaneously be supported because my aim is not to fully eradicate individual-level language attitudes, but rather to highlight the benefits of reforming institution-level attitudes toward dialects via changes in Chinese-language pedagogy.
Mandarin as a standard dialect
Standard forms of languages can have positive or negative connotations depending on context. For instance, Standard English has been described as an oppressive form of the English language in that it historically has undermined the strengths of other variations of English. The dominance that Standard English has over other English dialects stems from “dominant language ideology,” (Lippi-Green 1997) the notion that, as Vershawn Ashanti Young describes,
“There is one set of dominant language rules that stem from a single dominant discourse (like standard English) that all writers and speakers of English must conform to in order to communicate effectively”
(Young 62).
“There is one set of dominant language rules that stem from a single dominant discourse (like standard English) that all writers and speakers of English must conform to in order to communicate effectively”
(Young 62).
'Chinese' is the general name of the family of languages spoken in China mainland. The characters, “汉语”, stand for “the language spoken by the people of Han”. However, there are ten major sub-systems in this family, spoken in different regions by different races. |
Young asserts that the pervasiveness of Standard English, relative to other forms of English, is due to the societal perception that Standard English has a higher degree of clarity and is more easily understood than other forms of the English language.
Young also observes that linguistic discrimination in the English language stems from the incorrect social attitude that non-Standard forms of English are their own separate languages. He references cultural critic Stanley Fish’s statement that supports the role of Standard English as the predominant form of English taught in English-language pedagogy; Young contends: “Fish got it wrong here. When we’re talkin bout so-called varieties of English or dialect in relation to Standard English, we’re not dealin with two different languages; we’re dealing with a common language. So in fact he can’t teach ‘another one’” (Young 63). |
He elaborates that this alienation of English dialects causes dissonance between Standard and non-Standard English because it asserts a form of hierarchy where Standard English is viewed as the ideal form of English and other dialects are viewed as purely informal modes of communication. However, based on my reading of Young’s reasoning, I find that this form of logic is inapplicable to the Chinese language.
I suspect that those who speak non-Standard Chinese dialects generally would not contradict the notion that Chinese dialects are innately separate languages. While Mandarin Chinese is commonly known as Standard Chinese, there is no “dominant language ideology” surrounding Mandarin because of the disparity between dialectal variants (Young 62). In other words, a set of dominant language rules technically cannot be compatible with each Chinese dialect because each dialect’s grammatical and linguistic structure differs so drastically. |
Emory student Alan Shen provides a more specific definition of the word Chinese, describing the term as the “general name of the family of languages spoken in China mainland. The characters, ‘汉语’, stand for ‘the language spoken by the people of Han’” (A. Shen). In short, while Mandarin Chinese is the official dialect of China, it cannot be used interchangeably with “Chinese” since it is merely one of many different dialects.
An interview with donaldShanghainese has a lot of words coming from the outside, because during the Ching dynasty, Shanghai was one of the important port cities that many foreigners came to. The format of Shanghainese is very hard to grasp, because it comes with many different characters and phrases generally not used by traditional Mandarin speakers. |
My interview with Donald Li highlights more observations that further extend the notion that the Chinese language, unlike English, is essentially an umbrella term for many languages. Li explains that his native Shanghainese dialect is generally regarded as its own separate language from Mandarin, despite its label as a dialect. He elaborates on the differences between Mandarin Chinese and Shanghainese, stating:
“Shanghainese has a lot of words coming from the outside, because during the Ching dynasty, Shanghai was one of the important port cities that many foreigners came to. The format of Shanghainese is very hard to grasp, because it comes with many different characters and phrases generally not used by traditional Mandarin speakers” (Li). These differences in grammatical structure, pronunciation, and dialect-specific vocabulary provide justification for Shanghainese to be considered as a different language from Mandarin. From this logic, I assert that there is not a certain way to gauge which dialect, Mandarin or Shanghainese, is a more effective way of communicating. Since there are little to no common grounds for a linguistic hierarchy to be established, there is no general societal attitude that Mandarin is a linguistically superior dialect to other Chinese dialects. Hence, in spite of its title as the official dialect of China, Mandarin Chinese does not have the same oppressive influences as Standard English. Instead, Mandarin’s role as a lingua franca unifies the people of China. Due to the disparate cultural perceptions and differing linguistic qualities of these standard languages, I argue that a focus on Mandarin in Chinese-language pedagogy is an efficient practice that does not pose the same risks as doing the same for Standard English in the U.S. |
SEXIST STEREOTYPES, SHANGHAINESE, & “Niáng pào/ 娘炮"
They have even a phrase, ‘娘炮’, to describe boys who acted like girl |
While I argue for the use that Mandarin has with regards to its potential to unify, I also note the importance of acknowledging all Chinese dialects, especially in Chinese-language pedagogy. Chinese speakers are of the same race; many are of the same ethnicity, yet each of their regional dialects has its own distinctive subculture. More specifically, each region associates other regions with certain subcultural stereotypes and perceptions related to factors such as sexism, socioeconomic biases, and linguistic differences.
I pose that ignoring dialectal variants in Chinese-language pedagogy risks accepting the stereotypes associated with each dialect and its respective region in China. Furthermore, fostering these false beliefs only contributes to intra-cultural tension and misunderstanding among the Chinese population. |
Donald Li made a significant point about the effects of perceived stereotypes on the Shanghai people and their dialect. He states that since other Chinese regions perceive Shanghainese as feminine sounding, Shanghai men are often assumed to behave effeminately. Li elaborates that many northerners use the derogatory nickname “Niáng pào” to describe Shanghai men: “They have even a phrase, ‘娘炮’, to describe boys who acted like girl” (D. Li). As a result, native Shanghainese speakers often feel reluctant to use their own dialect. According to Li, this perception stems from the differing tones Shanghainese speakers use that sound similar to tones used predominantly by female Mandarin speakers. When I reached out to Li to further elaborate, he explained: “Basically it is said to describe how Shanghainese speakers focus less on their distinctions between sounds (i.e. They usually have difficulty in distinguishing Blade-alveolars & Retroflexes, basically difference between ‘s’ and ‘sh’ or ‘c’ and ‘ch’ etc.) That is hard to explain” (D. Li). He also explains that in order to diffuse these stereotypes, Shanghai businessmen often opt to speaking Mandarin. Nevertheless, in reality Shanghai people generally contradict the feminine and submissive stereotype. Li explains that Shanghai men are known for their more masculine traits, especially in business: “Due to the fact that Shanghai is a very big city and many people are coming from outside of Shanghai, the Shanghai businessmen are very assertive. They have to behave this way to run their business” (D. Li). Li’s observations indicate a clear discrepancy between societal perceptions and reality in that sounding feminine does not necessarily mean that the speakers act or behave in the pigeonholed context of what is deemed feminine. |
|
the "pride" of cantonese
Via my understanding of Li’s explanation, I reiterate that in order to dispel the negative stereotypes associated with each dialect, Chinese-language pedagogy must champion the study of non-Mandarin dialects and their associated subcultures. I observe that the gender-specific stereotype of Shanghai men stems from the misconstrued relationship between the linguistic nuances of the dialect and the subculture of Shanghai. In turn, I pose that only through introducing and emphasizing the subject of Shanghai to students in standard curricula can these misunderstandings be eliminated.
Aside from the negative implications of ignoring non-Mandarin dialects, I also observe that creating sole emphasis of Mandarin in Chinese-language pedagogy concomitantly encourages unwanted language hierarchy, giving rise to social stigmas and animosity toward Mandarin speakers. Expanding on this notion, I draw from Liu’s blog in which she relates the degree of discrimination that she endured due to general attitudes that Cantonese-speakers have toward Mandarin speakers. In one experience, she relates her shock that her Cantonese classmates would ridicule her use of Mandarin despite that their teachers all taught in and encouraged the use of Mandarin. Her classmates gave Liu and her other Mandarin-speaking friends derogatory nicknames by using the Cantonese pronunciation of their Mandarin names: “My classmates used to nickname all of us based on the pronunciation of our names in Cantonese. My Chinese name is ‘Mengqi,’ which is a name with a normal pronunciation in Mandarin. However, once it is pronounced in Cantonese, it sounds like the English word ‘monkey’” (I. Liu). |
What enraged me at that time was the fact that the salesman tended to treat the customers who spoke English and Cantonese, instead of Mandarin, more nicely. I don’t know if I was just too sensitive and paranoid because of all the things that happened at school, but I did feel people’s dislike of a certain language or their negative impression related to it |
In another experience, Liu relates a Cantonese salesman’s treatment of her and her mother in Hong Kong, recalling that the salesman regarded English and Cantonese-speakers with more respect than she and her mother:
“What enraged me at that time was the fact that the salesman tended to treat the customers who spoke English and Cantonese, instead of Mandarin, more nicely. I don’t know if I was just too sensitive and paranoid because of all the things that happened at school, but I did feel people’s dislike of a certain language or their negative impression related to it”
(I. Liu).
Similar to the situation Liu had with her classmates, the salesman’s attitude indicates a relation to his intra-cultural perception of Mandarin speakers. Liu also infers a similar understanding of the situation, relating that she felt the salesman had a “negative impression” toward Mandarin-speakers (I. Liu).
“What enraged me at that time was the fact that the salesman tended to treat the customers who spoke English and Cantonese, instead of Mandarin, more nicely. I don’t know if I was just too sensitive and paranoid because of all the things that happened at school, but I did feel people’s dislike of a certain language or their negative impression related to it”
(I. Liu).
Similar to the situation Liu had with her classmates, the salesman’s attitude indicates a relation to his intra-cultural perception of Mandarin speakers. Liu also infers a similar understanding of the situation, relating that she felt the salesman had a “negative impression” toward Mandarin-speakers (I. Liu).
the "inferiority" of dongyang hua
While Liu never fully elaborates on the reason for conflict between Mandarin-speakers and Cantonese-speakers, Alan Shen’s narrative hints at a plausible explanation for this tension. Shen explains his family’s perception of the hierarchical relationship between non-Standard Chinese dialects and Mandarin, specifically his experience with his own native dialect, Dongyang Hua. He relates that his relatives believed that the ubiquity of Mandarin made speaking Mandarin a useful tool to find jobs:
“Every proper institution requires all its employers and staff to speak Mandarin during the work and gradually it has become an unspoken requirement for the job applicants.” (A. Shen) Since most business avenues assume prospective employees have the ability to speak Mandarin, his parents had a sense that learning Mandarin was more useful than understanding Dongyang Hua. Shen also elaborates on the socioeconomics factors attributed to fluency in Mandarin, stating that his parents believed learning Mandarin would lead to “higher-than-average educations and jobs” (A. Shen). His parents went as far as telling their relatives not to speak Dongyang Hua near their children because they thought doing so would affect the children’s ability to speak Mandarin fluently. |
You can’t even tell the Dongyangians whom you meet in another town that you are from the same city, because you can’t even speak Dongyang Hua. It’s really sad. |
However, Shen explains later that his parents eventually regretted their dogged attitude toward learning Mandarin, as they realized that learning Mandarin did not guarantee higher job prospects and that understanding Dongyang Hua conversely has many positive attributes. Shen’s parents also regret that Shen and his siblings did not learn Dongyang Hua, since the dialect is an important part of their identities; Shen’s mother states:
“You can’t even tell the Dongyangians whom you meet in another town that you are from the same city, because you can’t even speak Dongyang Hua. It’s really sad.”
(A. Shen)
Thus, while Shen’s parents do not have negative attitudes toward Mandarin, they overall regard their native dialect of Dongyang Hua with pride. They also point out that encouraging the use of Dongyang Hua is important to conserve their family’s cultural heritage.
Linking Shen’s narrative to Liu’s, I reason that the Cantonese classmates who mocked Liu may not have behaved out of feelings of animosity toward Mandarin speakers, but rather due to feelings of pride as Cantonese-speakers. Their behavior may have stemmed from the overemphasis of Mandarin over Cantonese in class. I note that a lack of acknowledgement of Cantonese could create tension, as it conveys the idea that Cantonese is not as important to learn as Mandarin.
“You can’t even tell the Dongyangians whom you meet in another town that you are from the same city, because you can’t even speak Dongyang Hua. It’s really sad.”
(A. Shen)
Thus, while Shen’s parents do not have negative attitudes toward Mandarin, they overall regard their native dialect of Dongyang Hua with pride. They also point out that encouraging the use of Dongyang Hua is important to conserve their family’s cultural heritage.
Linking Shen’s narrative to Liu’s, I reason that the Cantonese classmates who mocked Liu may not have behaved out of feelings of animosity toward Mandarin speakers, but rather due to feelings of pride as Cantonese-speakers. Their behavior may have stemmed from the overemphasis of Mandarin over Cantonese in class. I note that a lack of acknowledgement of Cantonese could create tension, as it conveys the idea that Cantonese is not as important to learn as Mandarin.
Insight from Jingru zhao
There's is not really any discrimination towards mandarin speakers. But I think that people who speak Cantonese do have some kind of bias because they're very proud of their culture and their dialect and would be less likely to associate with you if you do not speak Cantonese |
To gain insight on the possibility of the perceived superiority of Mandarin in China causing tension among Mandarin and non-Mandarin speakers, I contacted Jingru Zhao who explained:
“There's is not really any discrimination towards mandarin speakers. But I think that people who speak Cantonese do have some kind of bias because they're very proud of their culture and their dialect and would be less likely to associate with you if you do not speak Cantonese” (J. Zhao). According to Zhao’s reasoning, Cantonese speakers do not feel inferiority toward Mandarin speakers, but rather pride of their culture. In turn, this notion of pride, as Zhao explains, could be manifested in xenophobic behavior, indicated by the segregation of Mandarin and Cantonese speakers in Liu’s class. Based on my interpretation of Liu’s and Shen’s circumstances, I pose that introducing an emphasis in Chinese-language pedagogy on the topics of Cantonese and Dongyang Hua could foster a sense of unity and create an opportunity for different regional speakers to learn more about each other’s subcultures. Acknowledging various Chinese dialects would in turn solidify their importance relative to Mandarin. In Liu’s case, having a degree of focus on Cantonese in class could have dispelled certain tensions between the Mandarin and non-Mandarin speakers because it would take away from the hierarchical implications between Mandarin and Cantonese. In Shen’s case, creating an emphasis on Dongyang Hua could potentially have provided insight on the positive attributes of his native dialect. I pose that had Shen’s teachers encouraged the use of Dongyang Hua, his parents may not have had such a skewed perception of the usefulness of Mandarin, as they would have seen the utility in speaking Dongyang Hua. |
emphasis vs. overemphasis | an incomplete conclusion
Through my understanding of Liu’s and Li’s experiences, I contend that ignoring non-Standard dialects flags the discriminatory undertones associated with different regions of China. Chinese students must acknowledge and be encouraged to explore dialects such as Shanghainese and Cantonese in order to fully understand the concept that differences in pronunciation do not necessarily mean differences in culture. In the end, dialects and languages are forms of communication and cultural identity, not indicators of character or intelligence.
Drawing from Zhao’s and Li’s perspective that Mandarin should be the sole language taught in Chinese-language pedagogy, I find their stance problematic due to the hierarchical implications of having an overemphasis of Mandarin observed in Liu’s narrative. In this vein, I extend Zhao’s and Li’s specific stance via Liu’s experience to argue for an acknowledgement and focus on all Chinese dialects. I contend that providing focuses on non-Mandarin dialects could help dispel the hierarchical implications between Mandarin and other dialects based on linguistic factors or otherwise. While becoming fluent in all Chinese dialects may not be a feasible goal, I would still encourage students to learn more than one dialect.
The topic of dialectal attitudes in China has countless viewpoints that can be argued and explored. Yet, just like any research paper, my discussion cannot acknowledge or emphasize each perspective. I note that the main shortcoming of my discussion is an overemphasis on the negative aspects of solely speaking one Chinese dialect, as opposed to elaborating on specific proposals for changes in Chinese-language pedagogy. Such proposals would likely be the primary focus of future discussions.
In the future, I would research the benefits of learning multiple Chinese dialects. Since Chinese dialects are essentially different languages, I would look into whether or not cognitive benefits reaped from bilingualism have similarly been observed in those who speak multiple Chinese dialects. Researching these positive cognitive benefits could provide scientific evidence that gives further reason for Chinese dialects to be added to Chinese-language curricula.
Furthermore, I would consider focusing more intently on the sexism inherent in disparate dialects, such as Shanghainese. I hope to research the relationship between the gender discrimination associated with certain dialects to the speaker’s job prospects and socioeconomic opportunities in China. From this research, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the nuances between gender roles and its effect on subcultural tensions.
Via the ongoing exploration of the multiple forms of linguistic discrimination in the Chinese context, I aim to create a wholly comprehensive template for Chinese-language pedagogy to follow. As I continue to clarify my understanding of the negative social stigmas and attitudes surrounding each dialect, I call on others to also take part in this discussion and urge them to refine and even complicate Zhao’s, Li’s, Liu’s, and my own reasoning.
My position in the context of our online exhibit as a whole relates to Jalyn’s and Jacob’s discussions in that I focus more intently on the consequences of standard dialects, while they emphasize proposals for preventing such outcomes. Each of us explores the nuances of a specific language relative to the English language context. By relating our studies back to English-language pedagogy, we are able to establish an international perspective on our observations and research. I refer to Jalyn’s and Jacob’s discussions of Japanese and English dialects respectively for further insight on this topic on an international level. Ultimately, it is through viewing the social context of dialects via multiple different frames of reference that a greater understanding of the nuances of linguistic discrimination is achieved.
Drawing from Zhao’s and Li’s perspective that Mandarin should be the sole language taught in Chinese-language pedagogy, I find their stance problematic due to the hierarchical implications of having an overemphasis of Mandarin observed in Liu’s narrative. In this vein, I extend Zhao’s and Li’s specific stance via Liu’s experience to argue for an acknowledgement and focus on all Chinese dialects. I contend that providing focuses on non-Mandarin dialects could help dispel the hierarchical implications between Mandarin and other dialects based on linguistic factors or otherwise. While becoming fluent in all Chinese dialects may not be a feasible goal, I would still encourage students to learn more than one dialect.
The topic of dialectal attitudes in China has countless viewpoints that can be argued and explored. Yet, just like any research paper, my discussion cannot acknowledge or emphasize each perspective. I note that the main shortcoming of my discussion is an overemphasis on the negative aspects of solely speaking one Chinese dialect, as opposed to elaborating on specific proposals for changes in Chinese-language pedagogy. Such proposals would likely be the primary focus of future discussions.
In the future, I would research the benefits of learning multiple Chinese dialects. Since Chinese dialects are essentially different languages, I would look into whether or not cognitive benefits reaped from bilingualism have similarly been observed in those who speak multiple Chinese dialects. Researching these positive cognitive benefits could provide scientific evidence that gives further reason for Chinese dialects to be added to Chinese-language curricula.
Furthermore, I would consider focusing more intently on the sexism inherent in disparate dialects, such as Shanghainese. I hope to research the relationship between the gender discrimination associated with certain dialects to the speaker’s job prospects and socioeconomic opportunities in China. From this research, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the nuances between gender roles and its effect on subcultural tensions.
Via the ongoing exploration of the multiple forms of linguistic discrimination in the Chinese context, I aim to create a wholly comprehensive template for Chinese-language pedagogy to follow. As I continue to clarify my understanding of the negative social stigmas and attitudes surrounding each dialect, I call on others to also take part in this discussion and urge them to refine and even complicate Zhao’s, Li’s, Liu’s, and my own reasoning.
My position in the context of our online exhibit as a whole relates to Jalyn’s and Jacob’s discussions in that I focus more intently on the consequences of standard dialects, while they emphasize proposals for preventing such outcomes. Each of us explores the nuances of a specific language relative to the English language context. By relating our studies back to English-language pedagogy, we are able to establish an international perspective on our observations and research. I refer to Jalyn’s and Jacob’s discussions of Japanese and English dialects respectively for further insight on this topic on an international level. Ultimately, it is through viewing the social context of dialects via multiple different frames of reference that a greater understanding of the nuances of linguistic discrimination is achieved.
My Multilingual Experience by Jesse Wang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.