Origin of Chinese spoken languages
Part 1.
Around the world, spoken languages eventually leaded to development of
various writing systems. An exception is Chinese spoken languages.
Contrary to other spoken languages, they were generated and evolved from
a writing system, called Hanja or Hanzi, and not vice versa.
Chinese spoken language is probably unique in that they were evolved from
written languages. It is comparable to a hypothetical scenario where a
spoken language is evolved from mathematical expressions, which is
universal. Despite language barriers, scientists and mathematicians
around the world can communicate with mathematical equations, although
the pronunciations of the mathematical symbols may be radically different
depending on their spoken languages. This is why Chinese people can
communicate by their unique writing system, but may not understand each
other by different spoken languages called Chinese dialects.
I have been curious about the origin of Chinese spoken languages, They
are radically different from neighbouring languages, especially Altaic.
The Chinese grammar is more similar to Indo-European rather than Altaic.
How could this have happened?
Several years ago, I read a very interesting article on the origin of
Chinese language: http://www.discover.com/issues？/mar-
96/features/empireofunifo？rmi715/
In this article, the author attributed the uniformity of current spoken
Chinese languages (low diversity) to the political unification ever first
achieved by the Chin emperor (221 BCE). He speculated that there once
were far diverse spoken languages in the current Chinese continent. He
cited Europe as an example, where far more diverse spoken languages still
are existent, despite the similar area comparable with the modern
People's Republic of China.
I am not saying his idea is entirely wrong. I agree that it may partially
explain the uniformity in modern Chinese spoken languages. However, the
major factor was the unification by the writing system called Hanja.
Hanja has been pronounced differently among groups, but could be
understood by writing. This is possible because Hanja has been
ideographic. Today, Koreans and Japanese also use Hanja, but
pronunciations are different. In summary, the Hanja was a kind of
universal symbols in the ancient Far East Asia, which is comparable to
modern mathematical symbols, but more complex in the sense that they can
be used beyond simple scientific representations to be adopted as a way
of representing spoken languages at least partially.
I hypothesize that Chinese spoken languages were evolved based on the
Hanja writing system, not vice versa. I speculate that once there were so
many spoken words in ancient Chinese continent but most of them were
perished as the unification proceeded. In modern Korean and Japan
languages, there are hundred-thousand onomatopoeic/mimetic words
existent. In Chinese spoken languages, they even do not have a character
(or word in spoken Chinese) representing basic concepts, not to
mentioning lack of onomatopoeic/mimetic words. For example, 'sorry',
'girl', 'boy' are a kind of basic words found around the world, but
Chinese characters simply do not have it. Once they had them, but they
perished by the unification enforced by the unique writing system.
Part 2.
Chinese spoken languages are actually written languages, because they
were evolved from an ideographic script called Hanja or Kanji. I provided
an additional evidence: tones in Chinese spoken languages.
Is there anybody who dares to argue that so much diverse tones found in
modern Chinese existed before the invention of Hanja? It is obvious to me
that tones have been developed to differentiate homonyms of Hanja
characters. Chinese people did not develop any writing system or modified
Hanja to denote tones, again suggesting that Hanja was not evolved from
spoken languages, but that Chinese spoken languages were modified and
changed to accomodate the Hanja scripts by sacrificing their diversity
(or entropy in the sense of information capacity). The Hanja has molded
Chinese spoken languages into current forms of Chinese dialects. The
entropy of spoken Chinese words greatly decreased but the entropy of
tones increased pro****tionally.
Part 3
Monosyllabic, isolating spoken language could not exist.
Would it be just a coincidence that Chinese spoken language is isolating
exactly the same way as the Hanja scripts? People and so-called linguists
want to believe that Hanja scripts represented so well ancient Chinese
spoken languages to be 100% isolating as we see now. This defies our
common sense. Spoken languages in the world are typologically categorized
as 1) inflectional, 2) agglutinative and 3) isolating languages. Chinese,
Vietnamese, Cantonese, Cambodian, and possibly Riau Indonesian belong to
the isolating languages. Except the last, the isolating feature is
related with Chinese influence. Thus, the Chinese spoken language is the
unique isolating language in the world. Because of their enormous
population size, linguists probably had no choice but to include their
language as a major category of spoken languages. But, it is nearly
impossible that 100% isolating language could ever exist. As we see in
Vietnamese and Tibetan, a certain degree of inflection is needed to
function as a spoken language.
Another unique feature of Chinese is being 'monosyllabic' according the
definition of a Chinese syllable. Vietnamese also has been traditionally
considered to be a monosyllabic isolating
languagehttp://www.geocities.com/SoHo/？Den/5908/language/intro.html.
However, Vietnamese shows a pronounced tendency for using bi- or
polysyllabic structures. And some suggest that once Vietnamese were
polysyllabic. This Vietnamese example suggest that it is quite possible
that at least some of current Chinese dialects were once polysyllabic.
Now, Chinese languages have two idiosyncratic features: monosyllabic +
isolating. Is it possible that "monosyllabic" + "isolating" languages
could ever have existed in ancient time before an invention of writing
system? My answer is definitely "No". But, I agree that it could exist
for very, very primitive societies. But, if any society evolved to a
degree of sophistication to invent any writing system, monosyllabic,
isolating languages were simply unimaginable. Even with just isolating
features, it is difficult to figure out syntax structure, but anyway
Chinese people now live and speak with that isolating languages.
How could ancient people could understand a syntax by monosyllabic AND
isolating languages? To express meaning and syntax together, we need a
certain degree of entropy in the sense of information capacity such as
16-bit or 32-bit computer processors. You can not edit a movie or songs
with 8-bit processors. The entropy in monosyllabic, isolating languages
is too low to express meaning and syntax together even for basic daily
life in the ancient time. How many words could they express in
monosyllabic language? The only solution to this degree of limitation is
adopting tones to increase the entropy.
Ancient Chinese initially used tonal systems to distinguish various
homonyms before the invention of Hanja script? The answer is obviously
No. Chinese tones were developed ad hoc to distinguish various homonyms
in Chinese characters. Instead of developing polysyllabic words, Chinese
people applied various tones to each Hanja character to make it function
as a polysyllabic word. They adopted polytonal words instead of
polysyllabic words.
Why have they been so much attached to monosyllabic rule instead of
developing polysyllabic words? The answer is that they could not escape
from the Hanja script and its isolating feature. Despite of recent
Chinese government's effort, Chinese are still attached to the Hanja
script. It seems that they will never escape from the isolating Hanja
script.
As it is impossible that the so called 'monosyllabic, isolating"
languages ever existed without help of a writing system and tones, it is
certain that Chinese spoken languages were originally neither
monosyllabic, nor isolating.
The current two features of Chinese spoken dialects are a product of ad
hoc adaptation to the Hanja scripts. This seems obvious if we compare the
degree of changes between Chinese spoken languages and the Chinese
writing system, at least since the middle Chinese period. Spoken Chinese
changed dramatically and dynamically while the writing system has been
nearly stagnant.
If A changes but B does not change, then A influences B, or B influences
A? The answer is too obvious. Let's try to think reversely: Isolating
Hanja scripts molded ancient spoken Chinese dialects into monosyllabic
and isolating languages.
Part 4
Branches come from a root; a root does not come from branches.
I think this evidence alone is enough to sup****t my theory that the
common ancestor of modern Chinese spoken languages was the writing system
called Hanja. This evidence is too obvious, but human stupidity and
stubbornness always prevails to make it difficult to escape from a
stereotype and preoccupation. Thus, I need to show excessive list of
evidences sup****ting my theory.
There are several dialects in the Sinitic languages such as Mandarin, Wu,
Hsiang, Kan, Hakka, Yueh and Min. They differ from each other to about
the same degree as today's Romance languages. Most of the differences
occur in pronunciation and vocabulary; there are few grammatical
differences. But, strangely to most Westerners, they can almost
understand each other by the common written languages.
This no longer would look strange if they could realize that the very
common ancestor language was the written language. Can a baby have more
than two biological mothers? Linguists and Chinese are answering to this
question by saying 'Yes'. If the Chinese writing system came from several
different spoken languages, how could there be a universal written
language that matches well with all of the different spoken languages,
both phonetically and grammatically? By chance or by magic? Please let me
know how this could happen.
An alternative explanation is that the different spoken languages have
radiated from the common ancestor language. The uniqueness here is that
the common ancestor was a written language rather than a spoken language.
This explanation is so easy and simple to understand. Why are they afraid
of accepting this uniqueness and desperately keeping the obviously
nonsensical belief that the root should have came from branches?
Linguists and archaeologists so far have insisted or believed that a baby
called Hanja writing system should have come from several biological
mothers collectively called ancient Chinese spoken languages. Their
belief defies the principle of the Nature.
Part 5.
I happened to find a book that sup****ts my theory. I cite this book and a
related review as my 6-th evidence sup****ting my theory that Chinese
spoken languages came from the isolating Hanja script:
The Roots of Old Chinese (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of
Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory) by
Laurent Sagart Hardcover: 255 pages ; Dimensions (in inches): 9.00 x 0.75
x 6.50 Publisher: John Benjamins Publi****ng Co; (August 1, 1999) ISBN:
1556199619 Unfortunately, I can not afford to purchase this book
($122.00). I just quote a part of a well written review from amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi？dos/tg/detail/-/1556199619/qid？=10986871...
"This trailblazing book presents a truly radical hypothesis. It argues
that Old (loosely: Early and Mid-Zhou) Chinese had a rich affixal
morphology, typologically comparable to many SE Asian languages today,
but radically divergent from its medieval successor(s) and modern dialect
descendants. It is radical in the sense that it once and for all destroys
the myth of Old Chinese (OC) as an isolating, static, purely monosyllabic
language, recorded in a writing system divorced from the spoken variety
underlying it. Reintegrating a full-fledged theory of morphology into the
reconstruction of the OC lexicon and its phonology, Sagart convincingly
subverts almost all basic assumptions about the nature of 'the' Chinese
language, which have periodically havocked rational interpretations of
Chinese culture, history and philosophy, ever since the days of the
_lettres ?ifiantes_. Assumptions, one hastens to add, which are still
guilelessly cherished by the majority of sinologists and general
linguists alike."
Thanks for the anonymous reviewer. You can read the remaining part at
amazon.com.
In my humble opinion, the author of this book could have got a better
inspiration if he could have considered my main point: Chinese spoken
languages were originated from the isolating written language called
Hanja script. It's so pity that I am not any kind of linguist to publish
in linguistics journals (I should be satisfied with this kind of news
group where only terrapin's eggs are dominant). Yes. It is indeed
radical, but the degree of radicality is pro****tional to our deep-rooted
stereotype and preoccupation which usually is based on political
propaganda.
Part 6
Mysterious linguistic and genetic relation****ps of Chinese
Linguists generally have said or assumed that Sinitic languages are
closely related with Tibetan, whereas archaeologists and anthropologists
suggest that people in Pacific islands who speak Austronesian are closely
related to modern Chinese people, especially southern Chinese including
Hmong-Mien (Miao-Yao) people [1, 2, 3, 4, 7]. Why does this discrepancy
occur? When considering both language and genetics, Chinese is closer to
Tibetan or Austronesian?
I think the language family name called Sino-Tibetan is the most absurd
one in language classifications. I strongly believe that population size
of Chinese people should not be a factor in classifying spoken languages
in the world.
Let me quote from Britannica online [8]: Sino-Tibetan languages
"Sinitic stands apart from Tibetic and Burmic on many grounds, including
vocaburary, morphology, syntax, and phonology. Most scholars agree on
combining Tibetic and Burmic into a Tibeto-Burman subfamily, ..."
"This relation****p is now more commonly considered nongenetic in that
most of the shared vocabulary is more likely attributable to a history of
cultural borrowings than to derivation from a common ancestral
language."
Also, in other references, Tibet-Chinese family is controversial because
of Tibeto-Burman.
This again demonstrates the power of reproduction capacity. The
classification problem lies in Chinese, not in Tibeto-Burman. Of course,
Chinese people are majority, but I believe it should not a factor in
language classification.
What are the common things between Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman, except that
some Tibeto-Burman languages were heavily influenced by the Hanja scripts
to show spurious phonological resemblance? Please list for me what you
can show here.
* Hmong-Mien
Because people in the Pacific Islands shows close genetic relation****p
with Hmong-Mien people in China, it is quite possible that the languages
also could have been related. But, we do not see the clear relation****p
between Austronesian and Hmong-Mien, at least according to P.D. Daniels
here. However, there is some suggestion that Hmong-Mien could be included
as Austronesian: "The Miao ethnic group has its own language which
belongs to the Miao-Yao Austronesian of Chinese-Tibetan Phylum." [5]
Again, why the same kind of discrepancy occurs in Miao-Yao people and
their languages. About 1 year ago (May 2003), I proposed Hmong-Mien
(Miao-Yao) languages as vestiges of the lost homeland language for
current Austronesian [6]
For example, let me quote a paragraph from a paper titled "Language trees
sup****t the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion." [7]
"Languages, like molecules, do***ent evolutionary history. Darwin
observed that evolutionary change in languages greatly resembled the
processes of biological evolution: inheritance from a common ancestor and
convergent evolution operate in both. Despite many suggestions, few
attempts have been made to apply the phylogenetic methods used in biology
to linguistic data. Here we re****t a parsimony analysis of a large
language data set. We use this analysis to test competing hypotheses--the
"express-train" and the "entangled-bank" models--for the colonization of
the Pacific by Austronesian-speaking peoples. The parsimony analysis of a
matrix of 77 Austronesian languages with 5,185 lexical items produced a
single most-parsimonious tree. The express-train model was converted into
an ordered geographical character and mapped onto the language tree. We
found that the topology of the language tree was highly compatible with
the express-train model."
Looking the genetic/linugistic relation****p between Chinese and Pacific
Islanders and the Hmong-Mien languages, it seems obvious that Chinese
spoken languages were once closer to Austronesian languages, but that
they radically diverged from the common ancestor of Sinitic and
Austronesian.
* Hypothesis
Why? Because Hanja scripts began to mold ancient Chinese spoken languages
into isolating and monosyllabic languages, after separated from
Austronesian. At the same time, the political unification by the Chin
emperor (221 BCE) accelerated this process.
How can I test my hypothesis here? I here predict, based on my theory,
that Chinese spoken languages became no longer inflictive and
polysyllabic only after the major immigration of Austronesian people
started. Physical anthropologists can estimate the approximate time of
immigration by genetic clock or other genetic calculations based on the
rate of mutations. Linguists can estimate the time when Chinese languages
became isolating and monosyllabic. Taking bigger risk, I can predict that
the two events occurred nearly simultaneously. Do not forget that taking
bigger risk guarantees more validity of my theory. Thus, I take this
bigger risk. I will welcome anybody who is willing to compare these two
time lines to falsify my theory: Isolating Hanja scripts molded ancient
spoken Chinese dialects into monosyllabic and isolating languages
Reference
[1] Gibbons, A. 2001. The Peopling of the Pacific. Science. Volume 291,>>
Number 5509, Issue of 2 Mar 2001, pp. 1735-1737.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/？content/summary
[2] Yanagihara R, Nerurkar VR, Scheirich I, Agostini HT, Mgone CS, Cui X,
Jobes DV, Cubitt CL, Ryschkewitsch CF, Hrdy DB, Friedlaender JS, Stoner
GL. 2002. JC virus genotypes in the western Pacific suggest Asian
mainland relation****ps and virus association with early population
movements. Hum Biol 74(3):473-88.
[3] Terry Melton, Stephanie Clifford, Jeremy Martinson, Mark Batzer, and
Mark Stoneking. 1998. Genetic Evidence for the Proto-Austronesian>>
Homeland in Asia: mtDNA and Nuclear DNA Variation in Taiwanese>>
Aboriginal Tribes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:1807-1823.
[4] "Farmers and Their Languages: The First Expansions" by Jared Diamond1
and Peter Bellwood. Science. Volume 300, Number 5619, Issue of 25 Apr
2003, pp. 597-603. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/？
content/full/300/5619/597/FIG2
[5] http://www.travelchinaguide.co？m/intro/nationality/miao/
[6] http://groups.google.com/group？s?selm=eb309be5.0305080944.d0a？b664%
40po... g.google.com
[7] Gray RD, Jordan FM. Nature. 2000 Jun 29;405(6790):1008-9. Language
trees sup****t the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion.
[8] http://www.britannica.com/eb/a？rticle?tocId=75005
Reposted on May 12, 2008
|
