Are the tones of some characters actually linked to their meaning?

[lukey296]

One of my teachers told me this is true, but I don't really see her as an authority on the subject. For example 轻's light 1st tone and 重's heavy 4th tone represent their meanings. Other characters mentioned were 大、小、高、and 矮

 

It's an interesting idea, but is there any research supporting it? Did the people who decided what things were called take this into account?

 

I can't seem to find anything online about this right now so if anybody has any idea then please let me know.

 

Cheers

[querido]

You need to see a vowel between the "r" and the "n" in this three letter word "r-n" to know what it means, or you need to hear the "a" or the "u" in "ran" or "run" to distinguish between them, right?

 

A study that I linked to here some years ago estimated that the tones in Chinese carry about as much information as the vowels in English and that sounds about right to me. So the tone is almost always as necessary as that "a" or "u".

 

Did I understand your question? Does this answer it?

[renzhe]

The first tone in 轻 qing1 doesn't "mean" anything, the same way that the initial "q" in qing1 does not "mean" anything.

The whole syllable, including the tone, in exactly that combination, is associated with a specific meaning.

[jobm]

I do not think so. The phonological structure of a word is independent from its meaning.

[realmayo]

Well, the "oo" in "boom" contributes to the meaning of the word "boom" 

 

Perry Link talks about how tones might "mean" something on their own in his An Anatomy of Chinese: Rhythm, Metaphor, Politics, specifically wondering if the fact that 摸 is third-tone is related to its 'softer' meaning compared to the 'harder' meanings of 磨 and 摩 which are second tones.

 

Here's a chunk of what he wrote (attached).

 

[Michael H]

I wouldn't dismiss the question out of hand. It is possible that there is some small correlation between tone and meaning. This could be an interesting thing to study. But any effect is probably very small, and not enough to help a language learner guess tone from meaning or vice versa. That said, if you can make up some stories, like "轻's light 1st tone and 重's heavy 4th tone represent their meanings", to help you remember tones, even if these do not have any historical or etymological truth to them, then why not.

[Tiana]

If one happens to think that tone x is associated with meaning y, it's no doubt possible (if one knows the language well enough) to find enough evidence/ co-incidence for the association.

[Demonic_Duck]

高、and 矮

 

What does she have to say about "低"?

[lukey296]

Thanks for the efforts guys, that's fine for me! So kind of a connection but not really. Realmayo, that book looks interesting I'll check it out. 

[lips]

One can always find examples for any correlation that one dreams up.  Unfortunately there will be many counter examples as well.

[Hofmann]

Yes, but not in the way your teacher described. There is evidence of affixes in Old Chinese. Different affixes evolved to correspond to different tones. For example, the /s/ suffix was often used to turn words into verbs. The /s/ suffix evolved to a departing tone in Middle Chinese, which evolved to 4th tone in Standard Mandarin. You can see this in the sets

• 好 hǎo (good) 好 hào (like),
• 與 yǔ (and) 與 yù (join),
• 王 wáng (king) 王 wàng (be king),
• 雨 yǔ (rain, the noun) 雨 yù (to rain).
• 衣 yī (clothing) 衣 yì (wear).

重 has something like that going on, but more likely a prefix, that evolved into voiced or voiceless initials in Middle Chinese, which evolved into the chóng zhòng set.

[roddy]

" Did the people who decided what things were called take this into account?"

I remember as a kid thinking this must have happened for English. Unfortunately it didn't, and even if it had it was so long ago we'd have got it all mixed up by now...

[lips]

Did the people who decided what things were called take this into account?

Except for technical and scientific terms, I have never heard of any "peopke who decided what things were called" in Chinese, or most natural langauges, for that matter.

Who decided "sky" is pronounced as tien1? or "tall" as gao1?

[renzhe]

That's an awesome post, Hofmann!

[Hofmann]

Wish I got paid.

[lukey296]

I will pay you in admiration, cheers

[lips]

the /s/ suffix was often used to turn words into verbs. The /s/ suffix evolved to a departing tone in Middle Chinese, which evolved to 4th tone in Standard Mandarin.

 

Interesting theory on the origin of at least some fourth tones in mandarin.

 

When I looked at the linked page, I noticed that in all four of the examples given, the suffix /s/ and the fourth tone were with the nouns/adjectives and not necessarily the verbs.  Based on the examples given, it'd appear that pronouncing the related verb in the fourth tone may not be as simple as a derivation of the suffix /s/, but it certainly makes sense for the nouns/adjectives given.

[Hofmann]

Yes, there are other functions of the /s/ suffix, including making nouns from verbs as shown in the examples on that page. I don't know what's more or most common.