Hokkien is NOT a dialect

I am a member of several facebook groups, some local and some foreign. Among the local ones is a group administered by Timothy Tye (an Old Free, like me) known as Learn Penang Hokkien. Yesterday, I read a most interesting contribution by a fellow member, someone named Ian Chai, in which he called for a rethinking of the term Dialect (方言).

Why should Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew and others be called Dialects while Mandarin is called a Language, he asked. I agree totally with his question. Why should they be called Dialects? Their histories predated Mandarin by centuries, and recognition should be made of this fact instead of sidelining them.

For example, sources like Wikipedia say that Hokkien developed from Old Chinese and Middle Chinese. (that is, dating from the Shang and Zhou dynasties from the 14th to third centuries BCE). With this long history, it is one of the oldest and most well-preserved of Chinese regional languages. 

On the other hand, Mandarin can be traced back to the Yuan and Ming dynasties (from the 13th century) when it started evolving from earlier Northern Chinese dialects. During the Ching Dynasty, it became the basis for the standardised Mandarin used in official government communications and education.

Thus in terms of a longer history, Hokkien is more ancient as it can be traced back to the early stages of the Chinese language. However, Mandarin gained prominence due to its association with later political movements and administrative centres. I am sure similar conclusions can be made with the other major regional languages in China such as Cantonese, Teochew, etc.

Ian Chai's important piece below should thus be made known to a wider audience. In my opinion, it is time for Hokkien, Cantonese and all other Chinese regional languages to stand up and be counted for their importance! Our heritage will be richer for it.

Rethinking the Translation of 方言

In our globalized world, language holds immense power in shaping our identity, culture, and relationships. Yet, the term "dialect" has often been misapplied to regional linguistic variations, leading to misunderstandings and undermining the unique heritage of languages such as Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and more. It is time to reevaluate our approach and accurately refer to these as "regional languages" rather than mere "dialects" of Mandarin, acknowledging their distinct origins, historical significance, and lack of mutual intelligibility.

First and foremost, labeling Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and similar languages as "dialects" of Mandarin belittles their rich historical roots. These regional languages have ancient origins that predate Mandarin itself. By using the term "regional languages," we pay homage to their individual histories, which have developed independently over centuries. The term "dialect" inaccurately implies that these languages are offshoots of Mandarin, overshadowing their unique linguistic evolution.

Furthermore, the misconception that these regional languages are dialects of Mandarin stems from the fallacy of mutual intelligibility. Unlike variations like the Cockney accent and the Queen's English, where speakers can generally understand each other despite differences, regional languages like Hokkien and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible with Mandarin. This key distinction is a testament to their linguistic diversity and independence. Therefore, applying the label "regional languages" rightfully acknowledges their inherent differences and the necessity for distinct linguistic categorization.

The misclassification of these languages as "dialects" also perpetuates a skewed hierarchy that undermines their cultural significance. By using the term "regional languages," we grant them the recognition they deserve, highlighting their pivotal role in preserving cultural traditions, storytelling, and artistic expression. These languages encapsulate the nuances of the diverse communities that speak them, fostering connections across generations and strengthening cultural identity.

In advocating for a shift to referring to Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, and their counterparts as "regional languages," we empower ourselves to appreciate linguistic diversity in its truest form. This change in terminology not only respects the historical lineage of these languages but also underscores the importance of embracing linguistic richness. It challenges the stereotypes that linguistic variations must be secondary to the "standard" and encourages a deeper understanding of the complex tapestry of languages that shape our world.

In conclusion, it is evident that the term "dialect" inadequately represents the uniqueness and significance of languages like Hokkien, Cantonese, and Hakka. By embracing the term "regional languages," we honor their distinct histories, acknowledge their lack of mutual intelligibility with Mandarin, and celebrate their vital role in cultural preservation. Let us collectively recognize the power of words in shaping perceptions and promote a more accurate and inclusive terminology that reflects the true essence of these linguistic treasures.