Difference in Mandarin Accents

[Daan]

Yeah, clarifying that is probably a good idea. But still, the question remains. Can standard Mandarin not change? And if it does change, how is this reflected in its phonetic transcription system or even the government-defined standard?

Let's use a different example: 什麽 is now pronounced as shéme instead of shénme by lots of speakers of standard Mandarin. Does this mean they are all wrong? Should they be forced to mend their ways or at least accept the fact that they're wrong by writing something different from what they said? Or should the government-defined standard be changed? I think there's a reason for many IMEs' having fuzzy input options. People tend to prefer spellings that are closer to their own pronunciation.

[atitarev]

Why pick on 什么? We have an example of assimilation, sandhi or liasion (连音) here. -n is merged with the following m-.

[XiaoXi]

@ XiaoXi:

Have you ever watched Taiwan news before? Many of the anchors speak with a quite standard Taiwan Guoyu accent.

So again we come to the question of what is the de facto standard of how to pronounce Chinese in Taiwan?

If the pronunciation problems don't bother Chinese themselves and they are understood, we shouldn't worry that much about sh/s ch/c zh/z type of differences.

What makes you think it doesn't bother Chinese? In my experience it does.

I don't see what the problem is. Assuming 是 and 四 are pronounced exactly the same, why would you want to have a different romanisation for it? We're talking about the same sound coming out of your mouth, so why transcribe it differently?

If they're both pronounced the same then why is the romanisation different? Since the romanisation is based on the sound of the word.

Are you not fooling yourself then? If a native speaker says zeng4 without a retroflex initial, why would you not write it down as such? I'm not saying you should not try and adhere to standard Mandarin pronunciation rules, but it seems to me you might have missed the point of pinyin: to transcribe sounds, which is what a transcription system is for. No more, no less. Why make it more complicated?

Well clearly romanisation/pinyin doesn't work without retroflex consonants..

Pinyin is used to teach people what the standard pronunciation IS, rather than transcribe what people actually say. Just because some (OK, many) people pronounce their retroflex initials as their alveolar counterparts doesn't mean that it is correct and that it should be written as 'si' instead of 'shi', just as somebody from the UK who might say 'fink' instead of 'think' would still write 'think' and transcribe it as such.

I'm pretty sure there are no English teachers teaching non-natives that pronounce their 'th' as 'f'. Pinyin is supposed to help foreigners with Chinese. It wouldn't help much if their teachers weren't pronouncing those retroflex consonants as they're supposed to be. I think pinyin has no point if you don't pronounce retroflex consonants.

@ Daan:

I think the definition of pinyin needs to be clarified here. Pinyin is the romanisation system used in mainland for standard mandarin. Pronouncing 是 as "si" in is not consider as standard in mainland China and therefore you can't write like this in pinyin. Probably you can do this with some other romanisation systems but definitely not with pinyin. Of course you can add in what ever accent you like in your speech but it will not be represented in pinyin.

Yes and that's how it should be taught, wherever you're learning.

[realmayo]

Pinyin is supposed to help foreigners with Chinese

Actually, I think it's designed to help Chinese with Putonghua.

What makes you think it doesn't bother Chinese? In my experience it does.

OK, hundreds of millions of people don't bother with the "h" in sh, zh, ch. If it was a problem, they would have adapted to solve the problem. The fact that they haven't suggests ... it isn't a problem!

[xiaocai]

Let's use a different example: 什麽 is now pronounced as shéme instead of shénme by lots of speakers of standard Mandarin. Does this mean they are all wrong? Should they be forced to mend their ways or at least accept the fact that they're wrong by writing something different from what they said? Or should the government-defined standard be changed? I think there's a reason for many IMEs' having fuzzy input options. People tend to prefer spellings that are closer to their own pronunciation.

Not really. Not too many chinese will actually notice the difference between what they write in pinyin and how they actually pronounce the words. I never realised that you have to change the 3rd tone to 2nd tone before another 3rd tone before at all until I read the rule, and as you might have noticed that tone sandhi is never written out in pinyin. Sometimes there is no definite right and wrong especially when it comes to a language used by billions of people. The regulatory body has been trying very hard on implementing uniformity on speaking for many years but I think it is quite impossible that all of a sudden everyone just talks with a CCTV news accent, isn't it? I don't know how often the government reviews the pinyin system but I am pretty sure that they will not make "si" standard any time soon.

And as far as I have noticed that most of chinese have no idea what "spelling" is. It is just not a native part of the language and I think very few native speakers know the logic behind it.

[renzhe]

I must admit that I'm getting kind of lost in this discussion.

- Standard Mandarin mandates the use of retroflex sound for sh, zh and ch, in the PRC AND in Taiwan both

- Teachers are expected to, and DO teach this, both in the PRC and in Taiwan

- Some people, coming from dialects without retroflex sounds, don't pronounce this correctly in everyday speech. This is especially common in the south (includes Taiwan)

- Nobody cares, as it doesn't hinder communication at all

It doesn't hinder communication because TONES and WORDS (context) are far more important than correct initials and finals in Chinese. Saying "shi" with the wrong tone is MUCH MORE WRONG than saying "si" with the correct tone.

[xiaocai]

So again we come to the question of what is the de facto standard of how to pronounce Chinese in Taiwan?

I don't get your point. As I said I don't know the "de facto" standard since I haven't been there before. And who said that they can only have one de facto accent across the whole Taiwan? But I guess what I heard in news will be the accent most close to the standard Taiwan Guoyu. Maybe you think it is ridiculous that people speak in one way but write in another, but it is still kind of true to many chinese.

Pinyin is supposed to help foreigners with Chinese.

No, It is supposed to help Chinese with Chinese.

[realmayo]

Maybe you think it is ridiculous that people speak in one way but write in another

On a tangent, is someone who says si but writes 是 actually speaking one way but writing in another?

[Daan]

Yeah, me too renzhe, so thanks for the summary. You make good points and I agree. I was only trying to point out that the mere fact that the official pinyin spelling of a word has a retroflex initial does not mean you cannot pronounce it without that retroflex initial. The fact that there is this retroflex initial in the word's official pinyin spelling is quite arbitrary, since there are hundreds of millions of speakers who do not use it. And that's what confuses me about statements such as this:

I think pinyin has no point if you don't pronounce retroflex consonants.

Of course it has a point: it's supposed to help people, be they Chinese or foreigners, master the Chinese language and its writing system, Whether there are retroflex initials in any given word's official spelling does not affect the usefulness of pinyin at all, nor does any given word's official pinyin spelling necessarily reflect language use in reality. Which is of course very understandable, since as xiaocai pointed out, there are so many different speakers of Mandarin in so many different places. But ultimately the decision as to whether a pronunciation is correct must lie with those speakers, and not with a book, I think

Hope this makes my point slightly clearer, apologies if I wasn't clear enough previously!

[XiaoXi]

OK, hundreds of millions of people don't bother with the "h" in sh, zh, ch. If it was a problem, they would have adapted to solve the problem. The fact that they haven't suggests ... it isn't a problem!

Its not a problem because the people that speak like that are surrounded by others that speak like that. Its only a problem for speakers of standard mandarin. Its like if I go to Newcastle I probably can't understand a lot of what they say but they have no problem understanding each other. It doesn't mean we should start teaching "geordie-hua" to English learners.

Actually, I think it's designed to help Chinese with Putonghua.

Yes that's true although I can't imagine it helps them much either unless they speak standard mandarin.

- Nobody cares, as it doesn't hinder communication at all

I think you'll find it most certainly DOES hinder communication among those that don't speak like that. In the same way that different English accents hinder communication all over the world.

[Daan]

It's not only accents that hinder communication, though. Take into account vocabulary, idiomatic phrases, slang and you'll find that even in your own native language, you cannot understand most people perfectly when they speak freely. Communication is always hard.

[renzhe]

I think you'll find it most certainly DOES hinder communication among those that don't speak like that. In the same way that different English accents hinder communication all over the world.

I've never seen a Beijinger fail to understand a Taiwanese if they both spoke accented Mandarin.

I think you're exaggerating.

Accents make things difficult for learners, I agree, but just like you won't get everyone in the English-speaking word to speak like a BBC announcer, you won't get everyone in China to speak like CCTV announcer. It's impossible.

[realmayo]

Its like if I go to Newcastle I probably can't understand a lot of what they say

This is true of any dialect. We're talking about something much more specific: a predictable, uniform, change of pronunciations where ch, zh and sh are concerned. Talking about Geordie-hua is a blind alley: you yourself talked about people speaking otherwise-standard Mandarin, but pronouncing ch, zh and sh non-standard. As I said earlier, it's like the north/south difference in the UK pronunciation of the "a" in "bath". Once you know to expect it, it's no big deal.

I don't think anyone here is saying that someone whose job it is to teach foreigners Mandarin should, certainly at the beginner level, use non-standard putonghua in class. No-one's disagreeing there. But nor is some exposure at some stage the end of the world. You wouldn't ban people from the northern half of the UK from teaching English to foreigners in London, right?

[XiaoXi]

I've never seen a Beijinger fail to understand a Taiwanese if they both spoke accented Mandarin.

I think you're exaggerating.

Well I certainly have. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then.

This is true of any dialect. We're talking about something much more specific: a predictable, uniform, change of pronunciations where ch, zh and sh are concerned.

Do they have a problem with ch? I thought the other one was 'c' became 's'.

Talking about Geordie-hua is a blind alley: you yourself talked about people speaking otherwise-standard Mandarin, but pronouncing ch, zh and sh non-standard. As I said earlier, it's like the north/south difference in the UK pronunciation of the "a" in "bath". Once you know to expect it, it's no big deal.

Its not the same 'cos no matter how you say 'bath' there's no other word that could be. Whereas if you say 是 as 'si' then it becomes 四. Also 'ci' becomes 'si' as well. So wouldn't it follow that saying '40 times' would become si si si? When it should be si shi ci? Tones would help you with the middle word but not the end word. To a standard mandarin speaker you could be saying 44 or 40 times. Maybe a lot of the time it would be ok to understand a non retroflex mandarin speaker though.

I don't think anyone here is saying that someone whose job it is to teach foreigners Mandarin should, certainly at the beginner level, use non-standard putonghua in class. No-one's disagreeing there. But nor is some exposure at some stage the end of the world. You wouldn't ban people from the northern half of the UK from teaching English to foreigners in London, right?

Anybody who says 'think' as 'fink' would surely not get through the English teaching qualifications in the first place so would not be able to teach English to anyone in England. I think the only situation where this might happen is when someone with a degree runs off to China to teach English with nothing more than that to say they can. Saying 'bath' differently is not the same kind of problem as we're discussing here in Chinese.

Anyway there is no point me arguing about this forever because 1. it won't change anything anyway and 2. I don't have enough knowledge about Taiwan or the south as to whether they teach you the correct pronunciation or not. All I'm going by is the Youtube videos I saw with two teachers and the student taking a test and not one of them were pronouncing retroflex consonants.

[realmayo]

I thought the other one was 'c' became 's'.

I don't think this is the case.

Also, I understand your point about si sounding like lots of characters, but let's face it, this is a feature of Chinese. Shi sounds like lots and lots of characters too, so does li, so do almost all the most common sounds in Chinese: this suggests that homophony (?) is something that is not in itself an insurmountable problem to native speakers.

[renzhe]

Its not the same 'cos no matter how you say 'bath' there's no other word that could be. Whereas if you say 是 as 'si' then it becomes 四.

But this is an exception rather than the rule. In fact, there is a famous tongue-twister involving 4 and 10 and 是. It's like being confused about a book being read, or a book being red.

The world will not break if someone says zi1dao or lao3si1 instead of zhi1dao or lao3shi1. People will not mistake a teacher for a nuclear power plant or a dangerous weed Especially in the presence of context and tones.

Accents can be a challenge for any language. Ask anyone learning German around Cologne or trying their standard Spanish in Argentina. I prefer standard putonghua too, because it makes my life easier. I just don't see why you're so upset about something this trivial

[gerri]

slightly ot to chinese, but illustrative, maybe:

I always just love the example of German... there is a "tradition" of considering only "german german" to even be "high german" - the real/standard language.

Linguists (who are up to date) however consider it a pluricentric language with different standards in the (three - Germany, Austria, Switzerland) countries where it is spoken. The differences are noticeable, but not really a problem.

A discussion like we get with Chinese is more a sign of language politics than linguistics: The strong support for seeing a Beijing version of Chinese as the standard language, all others as deviations, is a political mechanism...

Even more to the point: I have heard things like 十四 becoming sisi - context makes it clear (or at least is meant to, it didn't make it clear for me ;-) ). It just takes a bit of getting used to...

[XiaoXi]

I don't think this is the case.

You're right its 'ch' becomes 'c'. So its ci fan! Ouch that's nasty.

Also, I understand your point about si sounding like lots of characters, but let's face it, this is a feature of Chinese. Shi sounds like lots and lots of characters too, so does li, so do almost all the most common sounds in Chinese: this suggests that homophony (?) is something that is not in itself an insurmountable problem to native speakers.

That's one way to look at it. The way I see it there are so few sounds in Chinese that minimising further is a recipe for confusion. If its no problem halfing the amount of sounds in Chinese then why not just get rid of all of them except one..

But this is an exception rather than the rule. In fact, there is a famous tongue-twister involving 4 and 10 and 是.

Hmm what's your point there? Surely that tongue twister is incredibly easy/pointless for someone who doesn't pronounce retroflex consonants. In fact the very nature of its existence shows how important it must be to say them correctly.

The world will not break if someone says zi1dao or lao3si1 instead of zhi1dao or lao3shi1. People will not mistake a teacher for a nuclear power plant or a dangerous weed Especially in the presence of context and tones.

Not with extreme examples like that but I think its clear there must be some confusion. The nature of Chinese, even standard mandarin has confusion compared with other languages. Because of its very nature with very few different sounds I've seen standard mandarin speakers confused about what word the other one means and they have to physically describe the Chinese character before they understand. It stands to reason this would happen more often without retroflex consonants and EVEN more often when someone without retroflex consonants talks with someone who speaks standard mandarin.

What I've heard from most standard mandarin speakers is that non retroflex Chinese can be understood for the most part but its far from ideal.

[renzhe]

Hmm what's your point there?

That it is an exception and not the rule. You keep mentioning that particular example, so I'm showing you that even northerners will have trouble with their retroflexes sometimes.

Especially with this particular example.

So its ci fan! Ouch that's nasty.

Why is it nasty?

There is zero possibility of misunderstanding that. In fact, there is usually very little potential for confusion, if you take words and tones into consideration.

In fact, could you list some examples where missing retroflex can lead to being misunderstood? I'm asking because I've never felt it to be such a big problem. People who speak like that sound a bit funny, but I usually understand them just fine.

[XiaoXi]

That it is an exception and not the rule. You keep mentioning that particular example, so I'm showing you that even northerners will have trouble with their retroflexes sometimes.

Especially with this particular example.

Yes that's the point of a tongue twister but what I'm saying is if you don't pronounce retroflexes in the first place then a tongue twister serves no purpose. That tongue twister would not pose any difficulty for a "non retroflexer" so it would not even be a tongue twister.

Is this a tongue twister for you: "simon says something silly on saturday".

In fact, could you list some examples where missing retroflex can lead to being misunderstood? I'm asking because I've never felt it to be such a big problem. People who speak like that sound a bit funny, but I usually understand them just fine.

Yes of course usually but there certainly will be times you won't. I've already explained all this and would just be repeating myself if I said it again.