LanguageinMyCareer (draft) PerryLink WhathaslearningChinese(orlearningsomeofit,sincenoonelearnsitall)meantformyprofessionalwork?
MyspecialfieldshavebeenChineselanguage,literature,andpopularculture,andIhavealsospentconsiderabletimedoinghumanrightswork. Iwon’tdwellonthetautologythatChineselanguageisimportantforthestudyofChineselanguage,butforthefieldsofliterature,popularculture,andhumanrightswilloffertwobroadobservations.ThefirstisthatspeakingChinesehelpsonetobeeptedamongChinesepeople,whotendtorelaxandopenupmorereadilyintheirownlanguagethaninsomeoneelse’s.Thisrulenodoubtholdsinmanycultures,but,Ithink,maybestrongerinChina’scasethanothers.ThesecondobservationisthatlearningChinesemadeiteasierformetoappreciatesomeofthewaysinwhichpeoplethinkdifferentlyinChineseandinEnglish,whichismynativelanguage.Thispointcanbeexaggeratedandabused,andIwilltouchonthatproblemlater.ButIbeginwiththefirstobservation,whichisthemoreobviousofthetwo. Gettingepted Howmuchdoesithelp,municatingacrosscultures,togobeyondmerestatementofpointsandtobeable,throughsoundandmanner,tomoveatleastpartwayinsidethesecondculture?
Perhapsmanderofanaircraftcarrier,inaddressingthepatrolboatofanopposingnavy,cansettlefor“messageonly”munication.Butisn’titobviousthatscholars,journalists,businesspeople,diplomats,andmanyotherscandobetteriftheirspeechandbehaviorseemnaturaltothepeopletheyaredealingwith?
Iimaginethisistrueacrossawidespectrumofactivities,extendingeventothenefarious.Don’ttraffickersandconartistsdobetter,onaverage,iftheirspeechseemsnatural?
Whataboutacupuncturists?
Ping-pong 2 coaches?
Peoplewhojustwanttomakefriendsandhavefun?
Naturallanguageusewouldseemanequal-opportunitypurveyorofadvantage. Ofthefour“basicskills”inlanguagelearning—listening,speaking,reading,andwriting—speakingisatthefrontlineinearningeptanceforapersononlybecauseitistheeasiesttoobserve.ThemoreyousoundChinese,themoreyouseemChinese,otherthingsbeingequal.Italsohelps,ofcourse,tohaveaChinese-lookingface;awhiteorblackfacecansetyoubackabit,atleasttemporarily,nomatterhowChineseyoumightsound.Thispointstruckmewithspecialclarityonedayin1979when,onastreetinGuangzhou,IaskedapasserbyfordirectionstoZhongshanbeilu中山北路.Iaskedinmybest,slowbutprecise,Harvard-trained Mandarin.Inthosedaysthereweren’tmanyforeignersinGuangzhou,andthepasserby,appearingstartledandabitpanicky,tookamomenttoscrutinizemyface.ThenhesaidinCantonesengawmmsikYeng-man!
(“Idon’tknowEnglish!
”)andmovedon.HemaynothaveknownmuchMandarin—Idon’tknow.Inanycasetheevidenceofhiseyesoutweighedtheevidenceofhisears. WhenChinesepeopledofigureoutthataforeigner’sfaceistryingtoproduceChinesesounds,theirresponseisveryoftenwarmandgenerous.Evenifyouinfactsoundhorrible,peopleareflatteredthatyoucareenoughtotry.Statementslike“YourChineseisgreat!
”aresincereexpressionsofsentimentevenifuselessasmeasuresofhowgoodyourChineseactuallyis.Inthesummerof1994,whenIservedasfielddirectorofthePrinceton-in-Beijinglanguageprogram,IasionallyfeltsorryforourChinese-Americanstudents.Someofthemwere“zerobeginners”—nodifferent,inthatregard,fromtheirwhiteandblackandLatinoclassmates—andjustaslikelyastheytobemakingbeginner-levelmistakes.OutonthestreetsinBeijing,however,theyweretreateddifferently.No“yourChineseisgreat”forthem!
Insteadtheysometimesheardthingslike,“Lookatyou!
Chineseandyoucan’tspeakChinese!
Aren’tyouembarrassed?
” Butiflookscanbeabarrier,itisdefinitelytruethatsoundscanhelptobringbarriersdown.Imaybewrong,butIhavetheimpressionthatmyChinesefriends—atleasttheonesIhaveknownforsometime—tendtoetthatIamnotChinese.Or,ifthatstatementgoestoofar,atleasttheybegintothinkthatmybeinghumanismoreimportantthanwhateverelseI 3 mightbe.Thiseptanceappearsmostclearlyduringlivelyorheateddiscussionswhentheissuesathandtakecenterstage;atsuchtimesIgettreatedprettymuchlikeeverybodyelse.Theborderlineneverdisappears100%,buttotheextentthatitdoesgoaway,IthinkthatmysoundingChineseinspeechisanimportantreasonwhy. Inanycase,IamsufficientlyconvincedofthepayoffsofsoundingChinesethat,everytimeIhavetaughtelementaryChinese,IhaveinsistedoncorrectpronunciationofChinesetones.VeryseldomhaveImetastudentwhocannotmastertones.Idonotmeanthattheyalldomasterthem,onlythattheyallcan.Correctemoreeasilytosomethantoothers;butifateacherisinsistentandpatient,itworksevenwhenit’sdifficult. Whatexactlyarethecostsofspeakinginwrongtones?
Therearemanyjokesaboutwhatcanhappenwhenforeignersmaketonemistakes.Tonesarephonemesinthesensethattheychangetheidentityofasyllablejustasvowelsdoinpairslikebedandbad,orasconsonantsdoinwordslikebedandbet.Itisthereforeeasytoseewhytone-chaosisrichturfforjokes.Firsttonemāis‘mom’andthird-tonemăis‘horse’.Astudentwhoconfusesthetwomightendupsayingthathermotherplacedthirdinahorseraceorthathelearnedhistablemannersfromahorse. Buttheseareonlyjokes.Intherealworldsuchmisunderstandingsareextremelyrare.Chinesepeoplearesmartenoughtofigureoutfromcontextwhetheryouarespeakingofyourmotheroryourhorse.Theactualcostsoftonemistakesmustbemeasuredinthedistancetheygeneratebetweenspeakerandlistener.Thepoorerone’spronunciation,thegreaterthedistance.OnemightobjecttothisprinciplebypointingoutthatChinesepeoplethemselves,indifferentpartsofChina,usetonesdifferentlyandyetarestillregardedasChinese.Trueenough;butChinesegrowfamiliarwiththesedivergencespatriotsandregardthemasnatural,evenifnotstandard,whereasaforeignerswaysofbutcheringtonesseemoutlandish.Foreigners,moreover,sometimesgoallthewayintopristinetonelessness,andthis,whenithappens,canmakethemseemasfarawayastheothersideofthemoon—evenwhilethe“content”ofwhattheysaycontinuestobedecipherable. Todramatizethispointformystudents,Itakeafewminutesduringthefirsthourofelementarycoursestodoalittleexperiment.Howbaddoestone-freeChinesesound?
Aboutas 4 bad,Itellthem,asvowel-neutralEnglish.Todemonstratethepoint,IchooseastudentatrandomtogivemeanyshortsentenceinEnglish—“thecatisonthemat,”orsomethinglikethat.ThenIaskanotherstudenttonameavowelsound—“longa,”“shorto,”orwhatever.ThenIchallengeallthestudentstopronouncethegivensentenceusingonlythegivenvowel—i.e.,thesamesoundforeveryurrenceinthesentence.(You,thereaderofthisessay,candothisexperimentforyourselfrightnow,ifyoulike.)Myexchangeswiththestudentsthenrunsomethinglikethis: “Howdoesthesentencesound?
,”Iask.“Prettyweird,”theysay.“Isitunderstandable?
”“Yes,probablyis,justbarely…”“Sotheesacross?
”“Yes.”“Butwouldyouwanttodobusinesswiththisperson?
”“Uh…”“Formapartnership?
”“No,thanks.”“Revealapoliticalopinion?
”“…mmm…”“Goonadate?
”“etit!
”Inwhateveractivity,soundingrighthelps.Thisisnot,Ibelieve,becauseChinesepeopleconsciouslytakeoffenseattonemistakes,astheymightifyouappearedtodisrespectotheraspectsoftheirculture.munionthatgoodtonesprovideislessconsciousthanthat;it 5 establishesanundergirdingthatsayssomethinglike,“we’rebothhumanbeings.”GoodtonesdonotmeanthatoneautomaticallygetsinsideChineselife,andbadtonesdonotmeanthatoneisforeverbarred.Butitbeyonddoubtthatgoodpronunciationhelps. Theprinciplecanbeillustratedbynegativeexample.IncontextswhereChinesepeopleareconcernedthatdoorsremainshut,goodpronunciationfromaforeignercanmakethemnervous.Governmentofficials,forexample,needtoadheretotheprinciplethatneiwaiyoubie内外有别‘theinsideandtheoutsideareseparate’,andtheycanseemalmostelectricallyaversetotheideathatforeignersmightratetheirworld.TheyfeelfortabledealingwithforeignerswhoeitherspeaknoChineseor,iftheydoknowsome,speakitbadlyenoughthatthelinebetween“you”and“us”remainsunmistakable.Once,ataluncheonforavisitingChinesedelegation,whereAmericansandChinesewerespeakingthroughinterpreters,IsawanAmericanusenatural-soundingChinesetoaskaquestiondirectlyofaChineseofficial.Theofficial,notquiteknowingwhattodo,turnedtohisinterpreterandwaitedforanear-verbatimrepetitionofthequestionfromtheinterpreter.She,afterall,wasthepersonwhowassupposedtobespeakingChinesetohim.There-routingofthemessagethroughherwasnotdonetoimproveclarity,Ithink;itwasmorenearlyaculturalreflex,donetomaintaintheborderbetween“thetwosides.” Imaybeanpeculiarcase,butformetoneshavestucksoinextricablythatIliterallycannotthinkinChinesewithoutthem.Icannotlearnanewword,oraperson’sname,withoutthetones.IknowofgreatSinologistswhoseeruditioninChinesetextsfarexceedsmyownandwhohavereachedthesummitsoftheirlearningtonelessly;Icannot,though,senseintuitivelyhowtheydoit.Formeniaoissimplyblankuntilitiseitherniăo‘bird’orniào‘urine’,andIcan’tevenimaginewhatitwouldbeliketothinkoneofthetwomeaningswithoutthinkingthetone.AtmyageIhavebeguntohavemoretroublethanbeforeinrememberingnames,andIhavealsonotedtheoddfactofbeingable,sometimes,torecallonlythetoneofthemissingsyllableinaname,withoutthevowelsorconsonants. Thesereflectionsonhowlanguagehabitscansinkinbringustothe“secondobservation”thatIreferredtoatthebeginning.HastheChineselanguagegivenmedifferentwaystoseetheworld?
Howmuchandinwhatways?

6 ThinkingDifferently?
ThefamoushypothesisofBenjaminWhorfandEdwardSapir—whichsays,roughly,thatthewayyouthinkdependsuponthelanguageyouuse—hasbeencontroversialeversincethetwolinguistsadvanceditin1939.Criticshaveobjectedthatcausalitymightrunintheoppositedirection—surely,tosomeextent,thoughtalsoshapeslanguage,doesn’tit?
Othershavecautionedthat,whicheverwaycausalityruns,wearedealingonlyintendencies,notinstrictdeterminacies.Few,though,havedeniedthatWhorfandSapirhadapoint. Myownexperienceoflivingmostofmylifeintwolanguages,forbothprofessionalandpersonaluse,hasbeenthatWhorfandSapirverymuchhadapoint.ThingsfeeldifferenttomeinChineseandinEnglish.ImightpeppermyChinesesentenceswithEnglishwords,orpeppermyEnglishwithChinesewords,butthegrammarofanysentence—thewayitisconceived—isneverhybrid.Itisoneortheother.Moreoverthisseparatenessofconceptionsomehowextendsbeyondsentence-levelgrammar;itreachesatleasttotheparagraphlevel.Ihaveoftenfeltabitsourwhensomeoneasksmetotranslateoneofmyownessays.(Itrytohidethesourness,butIdofeelit.)Translate?
No.It’sneverassimpleasthat.Tofillyourrequest,Iwanttosay,Iamgoingtohavetositdown,re-attachtomyinspirations,andconceivetheparagraphsanewintheotherlanguage.IhavethisfeelingregardlessofwhetherIamgoingfromEnglishtoChineseorfromChinesetoEnglish. IshouldcautionherethatIamnottalkingaboutexoticism.Fordecades,evencenturies,peopleinbothChinaandtheWesthavetendedtolookacrossattheothersideandimaginesomethingverydifferent,sometimesevenamysticalantipode.Thistendencyrevealslittle,I’mafraid,exceptthatactualunderstandinghasbeenshallow.Infact,ordinarylifeisordinaryonbothsides—andnotonlyordinarybutconsiderablymoresimilarinitshumanfundamentsthanthemysticalviewssuggest.Atleastthat’smyopinion. Let’stakealanguageexampletoillustrate.“Atable”is一张桌子.TounderstandtheconceptualstructureoftheChinese,onemusteptthat桌子meansneithertablenortablesbutanabstraction,morelike“tableness.”That’swhyweneed张toindividuate.Tosay“atable” 7 wesay“oneflat-item-oftableness.”Twopeople两个人are“twoindividuationsofhumanity,”andsoon.Itiseasytoseehowthisstructuraldifference,takensuperficially,canleadtoexoticism.InChinatablesareflatitemsoftableness!
Howquaint!
CarpentersthinkinPlatonicForms!
Meanwhile,anunquaint桌子juststandsthere. Somypointisnotthateitherlanguageisexoticbutonlythatword-for-wordswitchingbetweenthetwodoesn’twork.Eachhasitswaysofconceivingthings,andtosaysomethingnatural-soundingineitheryouhavetoletithaveitsautonomy.Thedifferencebetween一张桌子and“atable”isbutatinyexample.Andnounsareonlyoneoftheproblems.Verbs,adjectives,and“sentences”arealsoconceiveddifferently.Thingslikerhythmsandparallelismsdiffer,too. InteachingChineseIhavealwaystriedtogetstudentsassoonaspossibletothinkinChineseratherthantothinkinEnglishandthentranslate.Thisapproachrequiresconsciouseffortfromtheteacher.AChinesetoddlerneedsnospecialtraininginordertoept桌子inthesenseof“tableness”;butayoungadultspeakerofEnglish,inuredinthehabitthatconcretenounshavetobeeithersingularorplural,needsto“getit”thatChineseconceivesconcretenounsdifferently.Irememberonceexplainingtoabeginningclassthatthesentence书在桌子上doesnottellyouwhetheritis“thebook”or“thebooks”thatis(orare)onthetable(ortables).ThenItriedtomakethepointthatthatisallright.Isaidsomethinglike,“youdon’thavetoknoweverysingledetailinordertogetalongintheworld.TheChineselanguagedoeshavewaystomakeclearhowmanybooksyouaretalkingaboutifthat’swhatyouwanttodo.Butifthenumberofbooksdoesn’tmatter,orifitisalreadyobvious,thenit’sokaytoleavethatdetailoutofthesentence.”Afterclass,astudentcameuptome.Hewasaphilosophymajorandextremelybright.“Butinfact,”hesaid,“Imeanintherealworld,itcan’tbe‘bookness’thatisonthetable.Ithastobeoneoranothernumberofconcretebooks.”HewasafraidthatChinesewastakingleaveoftherealworld.Eventuallyhedid“getit,”though,andbecameverygoodatthinkinginChinese. IimaginethattheabilitytothinkinbothChineseandEnglishandnottoletthethoughtmodesofoneinhibitorconfusethoughtintheothermightbeanadvantageinmanyfieldsofstudyandworkrelatedtoChina,butIthinkit’sespeciallyimportantinmyfieldsofliterature, 8 popularculture,andhumanrightsadvocacy.Thesearefieldsthatdependimportantlyonempathy,ontryingto“getinside”someoneelse’smindandfeelings.Whenthepersonwhosemindoneistryingtoappreciateisthinking,speaking,andwritinginChinese,toconfineone’sownthinkingtoEnglishseemstoaddanunnecessarylayerofdifficulty.Itis,astheChineseclichéputsit,like“scratchingtheitchfromoutsidetheboot”隔靴搔痒.ScholarsintheWesternSinologicaltraditionwhostudyChinesetextsusingEnglish,French,orGermansometimesgosofarastosaythatonedoesn’treallyunderstandaTangpoemuntilonetranslatesitintoaWesternlanguage.Idon’tgetthat.IhavegreatrespectforthemeticulousworkinclassicalWesternSinology,butifartisticappreciationisthepoint,tostayinsideaWesternlanguagestillstrikesmeasscratchinganitchfromoutsideaboot.IagreewithFritzMote,whoonceobservedthatthemeasureofhowwellyouunderstandaTangpoemisnothowwellyoucantranslateitbuthowdissatisfiedyouarewitheventhebestoftranslations. ThedifferencebetweenreadingoriginalsandreadingtranslationsstruckmewithunusualclarityoneyearwhenIwasteachingatUCLAand,bychance,wassimultaneouslyofferingtwoversionsofthesamecourseinmodernChineseliterature.OneclassofstudentsreadEnglishtranslationsandmettodiscusstheminEnglishat10:00a.m.;theotherclass—mostlyofnativeChinesespeakersfromChinaorTaiwan—readthesamestoriesintheoriginalsandmettodiscusstheminChineseat1:00p.m.Ihadanticipatedthatdiscussioninthetwoclasseswoulddiffer,butIhadnotguessedhowgreatthedifferenceswouldbe.Weread,forexample,LuXun’sfamousstory孔乙己,whichopenswith鲁镇的酒店的格局，是和别处不同的.ThisisagracefullinethatslipsthereaderofChinesegentlyintoascenethat,afewpageslater,turnsprofoundlydisturbing.Onereasonwhythelineisgracefulisthatitsubtlyevokesthe“2-2-3plus2-2-3”syllabicrhythmthathasdeeprootsinChinesepoetryandsong.Canthebeautyofthelinesurvivetranslation?
GladysandXianyiYangwrite:“ThelayoutofLuzhen’stavernsisunique.”1That’snotbad,butwecanseerightawaythatthesubtlerhythmisgone.Canateacher(likeme,inmy10:00a.m.class)diginandexplaintherhythmquestiontostudents?
Sure,butthisturnsthereadingexperiencefromlyricalappreciationintocognitivestudy.(Literarygrace,likeafrog,dieswhendissected.)Shouldtheteacherexplainwhata酒店is?
TheYangssaytavern,andIwouldsupporttheirchoiceeventhoughtheculturalconnotationsare 1SelectedStoriesofLuXun,p.TK 9 notquiteright.Wouldwineshoporbarbebetter?
Yesforsomereasons,noforothers.Howmuchclasstimeshouldbeusedtoexplainculturaldifferences?
Someoftheculturalbackgroundisvitaltoappreciationofthestory:KongYijiisafailedscholarinChina’sQing-eracivilserviceexaminations,wearsalonggowntotrytomaintainthescholar’simage,andsoon.Canweexplainallthis?
Willitdonottoexplainit?
Classtimeislimited,andwhateverisspentonexplanationscannotbespentontheheartofthestory.NomatterwhatIdid,itseemedfutiletoexpectthe10:00classandthe1:00classtoresembleeachotherverywell. Oneofmycareeravocationshasbeenthestudyofxiangsheng,China’spopularoralperformanceart,rapid-fireandwitty,whoseclosestWesterncounterpartisedy.XiangshengandTangpoetrycouldhardlybemoredifferent,butonepointtheyshareistheirrock-soliduntranslatability.WithoutChineselanguageitwouldhavebeenquiteimpossibleformetogetmiredinxiangsheng. IfeelthatmyhumanrightsworkalsodependsimportantlyonChineselanguage.Tosomeextentthisconnectionisapeculiarity,however.ManypeoplewhoareverygoodatadvocacyofhumanrightsinChinaspeaklittleornoChinese.TherearealsoplentyofpeoplewhoknowquiteabitofChinesebutdonotgetinvolvedwithhumanrightsorwhoevendefendtheChinesegovernmentwhenitsuppresseshumanrights.Forme,thereasonwhyChineselanguageisimportantinhumanrightsworkisthat,whenIthinkaboutrightsissues,Itrytosetasidewhatgovernmentssayandfocusontheconcernsthatordinarypeoplehaveindailylife:food,housing,schooling,health,personaldignity,elementalfairness,thepowertocontrolone’sownlife,andsoon.Whenajournalistorsomeoneelseasksmequestionsaboutanti-corruptioncampaigns,airpollution,familyplanningpolicies,undergroundchurches,conflictswithJapan,andotherissuesthatgetintothenews,whatItrytodoistoimagineandtoempathizewithanordinaryperson’spointofview.Thisisrisky,ofcourse;howcanonereallyknowwhatpeoplefarawayarefeeling?
Butnottodothis,especiallyifitmeansfillingtheknowledgevoidwithgovernment-sponsoredgeneralizations,seemstomeevenmorehazardous.SoIgoaheadandtrytoempathize,andthatempathy-leap,forme,dependsheavilyonlanguage.Itdependsspecificallyonmyimpressionsofthedaily-lifevaluesandconcernsofordinaryChinesepeople,whicharethingsthatfeeltomeasiftheylieinaculturalsubstratumthatisnotsubjecttoabruptchangeasnewsoftheesandgoes.Butwheredothoseefrom?
When 10 Ireflectonthematter,itseemsemainlyfromChinesefictionthatIhavereadandChinese-languageconversationsthatIhavehad.True,IalsoreadandtalkalotinEnglishaboutChina.But—andI’mnotsureIcanexplainthis—mysenseofpopularChineseideasandesoverwhelmingthroughChinese,notEnglish.Forjustoneexample:whenChinesepeoplespeakinChineseaboutelite-levelpoliticsinChina,thetermsandthetextureoftheirconversationsareverydifferentfromthewaysinwhichAmericansspeakinEnglishontheic. DifferentWorldViews,Perhaps?
Intheearly1990sIbecameintriguedforatimewithwhatcognitivescientistscall“conceptualmetaphor.”AnexampleinEnglishis“consciousnessisupandunconsciousnessdown.”Wewakeupbutfallasleep,sinkintoa,andsoon,andweevensayputersystems,thoseimitatorsofhumanconsciousness,thattheyare“up”or“down”dependingonwhethertheyseemtobeawake.OnereasonformyinterestinconceptualmetaphorwasthatInoticedthattheyaresometimesdifferentinChinese,whereweyunguoqu晕过去‘faintacrossaway’,andthen,whenweregainconsciousness,xingguolai醒过来‘wakeacrosstohere’.Noupordown.IntheChinesemetaphoronecrossesanimaginarylinethatseparatesonesidefromanotheronasingleplane.Iwonderedwhether,ifIstudiedtheconceptualmetaphorsofChineseandEnglishcarefully,Imightbeabletopiecetogethertwodifferentcoherentworldviews. YearslaterIpublishedmyresultsina120-pagesectionofmybookAnAnatomyofChinese(Harvard,2013).Bythen,variousexplorationsthroughthebywaysofic,whileaffordingmuchpleasure,hadalsobroughtmetotheconclusionthatmyhopeoffindingcoherentalternateworldviewswasfutile.First,IdiscoveredthatneitherChinesenorEnglishusesasystemofconceptualmetaphorthatisinternallyconsistent.Forexample,bothEnglishandChinese(andvirtuallyallhumanlanguages)use“space-for-time”metaphors:somethingcantakealongtime,welookbackatlastweek,andsoon.Buttheusesareinconsistentwithinthelanguages.InEnglishwecansay“Ourancestorscamebeforeus,socannothelpuswiththeproblemsthatliebeforeus.”Thefirstbeforemeans“inthepast”andthesecondmeans“inthefuture.”SimilarlyinChinese,wesayyiqian以前tomean“inthepast”butxiangqiankan向前 11 看tomean“looktothefuture.”Qiancanpointeitherdirection.Suchplicatedmysearchforcoherentmetaphorpatternsevenwithinasinglelanguageandleftmyhopeofdiscoveringtwowholeworldviewsinparallelevenmorefar-fetched. Atthesametime,acarefulexaminationoftheproblemsofbeforeandqian(pioneeredbyascholarnamedNingYu—youcanreadaboutitinAnatomy)revealedanamazingfact:theparadoxesshowanuncannyresemblanceinthetwolanguages.2Thesimilaritiesaredeeplyembeddedinbothandcannotpossiblybeexplainedasborrowing.TheyseemedtometoconfirmtheclaimsofpeoplelikeImmanuelKantandNoamChomskywhentheyholdthatcertainperceptualandlinguisticstructuresarehard-wiredinthehumanbrain.Myoverallfeeling,attheendofthestudy,wasthathumanlanguagessharemuchmoremonthanIhadoriginallysupposed.Sometimestheyshareeventhewaysinwhichtheyareinternallyinconsistent.Itwasanfortingthought.Itseemedintunewithmyintuitionsabouttheuniversalityofhumannatureandhumanrights. Yetitremainedfuntosearchfordifferences,andIkeptgoing.Examplesofuntranslatablesentencesseemedagoodplacetostart.Onecanargue,ofcourse,thatnotwosentencesinChineseandEnglishareeverexactlyequivalent.Evenzhuoziis“tableness,”not“atable,”aswehavenotedabove.ButImeansomethingevenmorefrustratingthanthat.Imeanpuzzlesliketashidijigejinjiaoshide?
他是第几个进教室的？HowcanwesaythatsentenceinEnglish?
Canwesay“Hewasthewhat-numberedthtoentertheclassroom?
”?
Numberedthisn’taword.Wecouldexpanditto“Whatplacewasheinasheenteredtheclassroom?
”Butthat’sambiguous.Itmightbeansweredas,“HewasinMcCoshHallinPrinceton,
N.J.”Howabout,“Whatnumberwasheinenteringtheclassroom?
”Buthere“number”isambiguous.Ofcoursewecouldspellthewholethingoutas,“Ifseveralpeoplewereenteringtheclassroomandonewasfirst,anothersecond,andsoon,whatnumberwashe?
”Nowthemeaningisclear,butitusesthirtysyllables,paredtonineintheoriginal,andtheconceptualstructureisdifferent.Itiseasy,too,tothinkofpuzzlesthatgointheotherdirection,fromEnglishtoChinese.Howdo 2NingYu,TheContemporaryTheoryofMetaphor:APerspectivefromChinese(Amsterdam:Benjamins,1998),pp.102-107. 12 yousayinChinese“therearefishasgoodintheseaasanythatevercamefromit”—withoutgeneratingeitherconsiderableconfusionorconsiderableexpansion?
Intheend,though,thesemattersarebutpuzzles,andprobablynotsignificantinlifeexceptatthelevelwhereoneenjoyspuzzles.ArethereexampleswherethedifferentstructuresofChineseandEnglishlanguageleadtosomethingmoreprofound?
Ibelieveso,andItrytoaddressoneofthemneartheendofthe“metaphor”chapterinmyAnatomybook.IspeculatethereonwhetherthepreferenceinEnglishandotherIndo-Europeanlanguagesforconceivingexperienceinnounsmightcreatephilosophicalproblemsthat,ifoneusedverb-richChineseinstead,mightseemsmallerproblems,orindeednotproblemsatall. ProblemsinWesternphilosophyhaveoftentakentheformof“WhatisX?
,”whereXisgrammaticallyanounthatthereforerefers,implicitly,toanabstractthing.WhatisForm?
Matter?
TheGood?
Mind?
Beauty?
Justice?
Existence?
Andsoon.Butsuchquestionsdon’tfiteasilyintoChinese,whereconceivingnounsdoesn’thappensoeasilyandverbsareusedmore.Forexample,anEnglishphraselike“thenatureofexistence”suggestsanabstract,evenmystical,idea,butgrammaticallyitstillfeelsnaturalandinvitesamindtoexploreit.Ifwetranslateword-for-wordintoChinese,though,wegetcunzaidexingzhi存在的性质,anawkwardandopaquephrasethatvirtuallybroadcastsitsWestern-languageorigins.China’sgreatpre-Qinphilosophersalsothoughtaboutexistenceandnon-existence,buttheyusedyou有andwu无todoit.Youandwuareverbs. Ibegantowonder:HowstrongisthehabitinIndo-Europeanlanguagesofthinkinginnouns,andmightthishabitmatterinWesternphilosophy?
ThestrengthofthenominalizinghabithitmewithspecialforceonedayinJanuary,1979,inGuangzhou,whereIwasvisitingwithaUCLAdelegationwhosegoalwastosetupacademicexchangeswithZhongshanUniversity.Ataformalmeeting,IfoundmyselfinterpretingforaUCLAvicechancellorwhospokeof“thebeginningofthedevelopmentoftheprocessofconstructionofbi-lateralrelations.”HowshouldItranslate?
ShouldIsay,literally,liangbiandeguanxidejianshedeguochengdefazhandekaishi两边的关系的建设的过程的发展的开始?
WouldChinesepeopleintheaudiencenotthinkthattheAmericanvicechancellorhadlosthisgrip?
Whywasit,Iwonderedlater,thathecouldsoundokay(ifabitstuffy)inEnglishandyetalmostmoronicin 13 Chinese?
Theanswerseemedtohavesomethingtodowithhistakingallthoseverbythings—begin,develop,proceed,construct,relate—andmakingthemintonouns.ThisworksfineinEnglish,notinChinese. Idecidedtodoanobjectiveexperiment.IopenedCharlesDickens’OliverTwistatrandomandcountedthenumberofnounsandverbsononepage.ThenIdidthesameforCaoXueqin’sHongloumeng红楼梦.TheratioofnounstoverbsontheDickenspagewas2.5to1.0.OntheCaopageitwas0.8to1.0.Theresultswerenotsuper-precise,becausefortheChineseIsometimeshadtobeabitarbitraryindecidingwhatpartofspeechawordwas.Still,theoverallpicturewasprettyclear. Thequestion,now,waswhetherthetendencyofWesternphilosopherstoposequestionsoftheform“whatis[noun]?
”mightbelittlemorethanathought-habitinducedbythegrammaticalpenchantsoftheirnativelanguages.WouldtheirclassicphilosophicalproblemslookdifferentifapproachedinChinese?
Idecidedtotestthematterusingthefamous“mind-bodyproblem”—themysteryofhowthephysicalbodyandthenon-physicalmindcanberelated,astheyobviouslyare.IreadabookontheproblemcalledTheMysteriousFlame(BasicBooks,1999)byColinMcGinn,aphilosopherwhomIgreatlyadmire.McGinngivesseveralexamplesofhowphysicalthingsupyspacewhilementalthingsdonot.Hereisoneofhisexamples: Considerthevisualexperienceofseeingaredspheretwofeetawaywithasix-inchdiameter.Theobjectofthisexperienceisofcourseaspatialobjectwithspatialproperties,buttheexperienceitselfdoesnothavetheseproperties:itisnottwofeetawayfromyouandsixinchesindiameter....Whenwereflectontheexperienceitself,wecanseethatitlacksspatialpropertiesaltogether.3 InAnatomy,IfollowMcGinn’slineswiththeseofmyown: Thekeyphrasehereis"theexperienceitself."Istheresuchathing?
Thenoun"experience"exists,butthatisnotthequestion.Doestheexperienceexist?
Wemight 3TheMysteriousFlame,p.109 14 feelintuitivelythatitdoes.Butdoesthisintuitionarise,inpart,fromthegrammaticalhabitofusingnounslike"experience"andassumingthattheyrefertothings?
Isthereawaywecantestwhetherourintuitionsindeedarebeingshapedbynouns?
TheEnglishword"experience"isperhapsnotthebestexamplefordoingsuchatest,simplybecauseithasthesameformasbothnoun("experience")andverb("experience")."Feeling"mightworkbetter,becausethenoun("feeling")andtheverb("feel")havedifferentforms.Inmostcases,twostatementsoftheforms"IfeelX"and"IhaveafeelingofX"willnotdiffermuch,ifatall,inmeaning.Butnowconsiderthis:IfIsay"IfeelX,"youcannotgrammaticallyaskmeinEnglish"Doesyourfeelhavespatialproperties?
".Youcouldask,"Doyoufeelwith(orin)lengthandcolor?
",butthisquestion,althoughgrammatical,doesnot"makesense."Nomatterhowyouputthem,questionsaboutthespatialityofXarehardtophraseifyouusetheword"feel"insteadoftheword"feeling."Butif,ontheotherhand,Isay"IhaveafeelingofX,"thenthesamequestion—"Doesyourfeelinghavespatialproperties?
"—nowdoesmakesense.Itnotonlymakesgrammaticalsense,butmakesenoughphilosophicalsensetogetintothewritingofanexcellentphilosopherlikeColinMcGinn.Sowecanseeherethatfromastartingpointwherethereisnorealdifferenceindaily-lifeusage(i.e.,between"IfeelX"and"IhaveafeelingofX"),thechoiceofwhichtousecanleadto(orperhapsgenerate?
)agreatphilosophicalpuzzleifonegoesonedirectionandleadtonopuzzlementifonegoestheother.4 McGinngoesontopointoutthatnumbers,liketheexperienceofredspots,donotupyspace."Wecannotsensiblyaskhowmuchspacethenumber2takesuprelativetothenumber37,"hewrites."Itishardlytruethatthebiggerthenumberthemorespaceitupies."5Thenhewrites: Toattributespatialpropertiestonumbersisaninstanceofwhatphilosopherscallacategory-mistake,tryingtotalkaboutsomethingasifitbelongedtoacategoryitdoesnot 4AnatomyofChinese,p.2305TheMysteriousFlame,p.110. 15 belongto.Onlyconcretethingshavespatialproperties,notabstractthingslikenumbersormentalthingslikeexperiencesofred.6 TothisIwrite,inAnatomy: Inmyimaginationapre-QinChinesephilosophermightwelleptthispoint,butthenaskMcGinn:Whydoyouexperiencelifeas"abstractthings"?
Isthatnotalsoacategory-mistake?
IfIseearedspot,doInotsimplyseearedspot?
Theredspot,yes,isathing,but"Isee"isnotathing,eitherconcreteorabstract.IseeisIsee.Ifyouchangeitinto"mysight"or"myexperienceofseeing,"youareperformingagrammaticalact,butthatgrammaticalacthasnopowertochangethewaytheworldis.7 OnseveralasionsIhavepresentedthisargumenttophilosopherfriends.Theyhaveallbeenkind,butanswer,onewayoranother,that“youhavenotsolvedthemind-bodyproblem.”Fairenough.Idon’tbelieveIhavesolvedit,either.ButIdothinkmyargumenthelpstoexplainwhythemind-bodyproblemhasbeensoprominentforWesternphilosophers,especiallysinceDescartes,whereasChinesephilosophers,bothbeforeandafterthearrivalofBuddhism,althoughtheycertainlytalkaboutmind,donotgetcaughtupintheproblem.AndIthinkonecanlegitimatelyask:areWesternphilosophersbetteroffbecausethegrammaroftheirlanguagehelpsthemtoconceivetheprobleminclearerterms,orareChinesephilosophersbetteroffbecausethegrammaroftheirlanguageleadsthemtofeelthatitisnotreallyaproblem?
InanycaseIdisagreewitheLakoff,thefamoustheoristofconceptualmetaphor,whohasarguedthat“ontologicalmetaphors”(histermforwhatIhaveherebeencalling“nominalization”)“arenecessaryforevenattemptingtodealrationallywithourexperiences."8Chinesepeople,both 6ibid.7Anatomy,p.2318MetaphorsWeLiveBy,withMarkJohnson(Chicago,1980,)p.26 16 philosophersandordinarypeople,usefarfewerontologicalmetaphorsthanEnglishspeakersdoandyethave,onaverage,neithermoreorlesstrouble“dealingrationallywithexperience.” Gardening InadditiontostudyingtheChineselanguage,asIhavedoneinAnatomyandelsewhere,IhavealsospentmuchofmylifeteachingChinese.Thisactivityhasbeenextremelyimportanttome,notonlyinpursuingacareerbutinmygeneralenjoymentoflife.Itdeservesafewparagraphs. IhavetaughtcoursesinelementaryChinesenearlythirtytimes,mostlyatPrincetonbutalsoatHarvard,Middlebury,andtheUniversityofCalifornia.BecauseenrolmentsinbeginninglanguagecoursestendtobelargerthaninothercoursesinChinastudies,mylanguagestudentshave,overtheyears,numberedfarmorethanmyliteraturestudents.Therehavebeenmanyhundreds.Somehaveeverydistinguished,too—asuniversitypresidents,
U.S.ambassadors,apresidentoftheACLS,prize-winningjournalists,andspectacularlywealthybusinesspeople,forexample.Theiressesinthesevariousfieldshavehadnothingtodowithme;mypartisonlythegoodluckofhavinggotthemstartedinChinese,andthenwatchingwhathappens.TheChinesephraseqingchuyulan青出于蓝‘greenemergesfromblue(alatergenerationsurpassesitspredecessor)’esoftentomind. Inonesense,thesatisfactionsoflanguageteachingdifferradicallyfromesfromteachingliterature.Inonecasetheresultsarevisibleandmeasurable,intheothertheyarelargelynot.WhenIteachliterature,Imightgetexcitedaboutashortstory—itsbeauty,itsmoraldepth,itsintellectualpuzzles,orwhatever—andwhenthishappensIcansensethatatleastsomeofthestudentsalsogetexcited.But,intheend,afteraclasshourorevenafterawholecourse,doIreallyknowwhattheyhavetakenaway?
No.HowcouldIknow?
Icangiveanexam,butexamanswersveryseldomrevealthereallyimportantthingsthatliteratureoffersaperson.Afewyearsago,astudentwhomIhadtaughtatPrincetoninthe1970scameuptomeafteralectureandsaid,“ProfessorLink,yousaidsomethingbackthenthatchangedmywholelife.Thankyou.”Iaskedherwhatitwas,andshesaidsomethingthatIhadnorecollectionofeversaying,or,tobehonest,everthinking.Butthereitwas.IwasremindedofMarionLevy,who 17 waschairofEastAsianStudiesatPrincetonwhenIfirstarrivedtherein1973.SomeoneaskedMarionwhathetaughtandhesaid,“Idon’tknow.IknowwhatIwanttoteach,andIknowwhatthecataloguesaysIteach,butIdon’tknowwhatIteach.” Languageteaching,ontheotherhand,islargelyfreefromthisunknowability.Itresemblesgardening:onepreparestheground(i.e.,doesfoundationworkinpronunciationoftones,retroflexes,andothertrickysounds),thensowssomeseeds(vocabularyandsomesimplegrammar),thenaddswater,fertilizer,andsunlight(classexercises,homework,ateacherwithasenseofhumor),pullssomeweeds(outwiththosemistakes!
)—andfinally,withtime,somethingtakesrootandgrows.Itgrowsonitsown—ratherlikegreenemergingfromblue.Alltheteacherneedstodoistocontinuesupplyingnutrientsandtocontinuewithpruning.Aftertheninemonthsorsoofabeginningcourse,ateachercanstandbackandenumeratehisorherfruits.Shecanpointtoastudent(figuratively,ofcourse)andsay,“LookwhatIdid!
LastyearthatstudentknewnoChineseatall,andnowhedoes—andhe’sprettygood!
See?
Imadeadifference.”Thedifferencesarevisible.Theyaremucheasiertomeasurethanwhatateacherofliteratureachieves. Gardeningpleasuresareavailabletoteachersofanylanguage,ofcourse.ButforthepersonwhoteachesChinesetoEnglish-speakingAmericans,Ithinktherearetwobonuses.OneisthesatisfactionofstretchingyoungmindsfurtherthanEuropeanlanguagesdo.Thejumpfrom“hereisthetable”to“voicilatable”seemsbland,I’mafraid,parisontoajumpto桌子在这儿。
Second,theteacherofChinesecanenjoytheheroicposeofstandingagainstahuge,andinsomewaysirrational,imbalanceinrecenthumanhistory.Thissecondpointneedssomeelaboration. Intheeenthcentury,afterBritishgunboatsarrivedontheChinacoastandbeganwinningone-sidedwars,manyChineseconcludedthatthey,too,wouldneedmodernarmsandothermoderndevices,andthereforethemoderntechnologynecessarytobuildthem,andthereforethe“Westernlearning”thatundergirdsthetechnology,andthereforeWesternlanguageslikeEnglish.ThissummaryofrecentChinesehistoryisfartoobrief,ofcourse,butshouldbesufficienttomakemypointthatEnglishwaspursuednotbecauseofanyassumptionthatitwasinherentlysuperiortoChinesebutbecauseitwasseenasindispensableforother 18 reasons.FastforwardacenturyorsoandmillionsofChinesehavelearnedEnglish,someofthemextraordinarilywell,whileAmericanswhoknowChinesewerebutatinyfew.WhenItookbeginningChineseatHarvardinfall,1963,therewereonlytwelvestudentsinmyclass. WiththeeconomicriseofChinainthe1980sand1990s,ChineselanguageenrolmentsroseintothehundredsatplaceslikeHarvard.Todaythereareover60,000AmericancollegestudentstakingChinesecoursesandabout50,000morestudyingatthehigh-schoollevel.Butthatprogressisstillnotmuchofacorrectivetothehugehistoricalimbalancethatremains.Todayabout50millionChinesehigh-schoolstudentsstudyEnglish.9Thatnumberisabout1,000timesthenumberofAmericanhigh-schoolstudentsstudyingChinese(tosaynothingofthreetimeslargerthanthenumberofU.S.high-schoolersstudyingEnglish).OnemightobjectthatthesituationisnotreallysoimbalancedbecausetheEnglishinstructioninChinaisoftenverylowinquality.Thatobservationiscorrectbutasanobjectiontothepatternisweak,becauseChineseinstructioninU.S.highschools,withfewexceptions,isalsoweak.TeachersinthebetteruniversityprogramsintheplainthatstudentswhohavebeguntheirChineseinhighschooloftenneedtostartoverincollege,andrestartingissometimesevenmoredifficultthanstartingfromzerobecausestudentsarrivewithentrenchedbadhabits,especiallyinpronunciation. MeanwhiletheoveralldominanceofEnglishlumbersonandistakenforgrantedeveninSinologicalcircles.DuringasabbaticalyearattheAcademiaSinicainTaipeiin2013-14,IenjoyedgoingtotalksinseveraloftheAcademy’sresearchinstitutes,including,oneday,aseminaronDavidHumeintheEuropeandAmericaResearchInstitute.ThespeakerwasaBritishphilosopherfromOxford,andhespokeincarefullycraftedandpreciseEnglish.ThequestionsfromtheChineselistenerswerealsoinEnglish,andwerealsospokenwithclarityandprecision.Iwasimpressed.Thisisasitshouldbe,Ithought.ABritishscholaristalkingaboutaBritishthinker,andeverybodyusesEnglish.Ofcourse.ButthenIwondered:howfararewefroman“ofcourse”whenthingsaretheotherwayaround?
IfaChinesescholaroffersatalkonWangYangming,whereintheWesternacademicworld—atwhatuniversity,oronwhatpaneloftheAssociationforAsianStudies,forexample—wouldthepresentationbeinChinese,andthe 9Qu,Bo,“ChangingEnglish:StudiesinCultureandEducation,”RoutledgeISSN1358-684X(December2007) 19 question-and-answerafterwardsalsobeinChinese?
Ifsuchathingweretohappen,theresponsetoitwouldlikelybeoftwokinds. Oneopinionwouldbe,“Howcanyoudothis?
Wedon’tdothishere.WespeakEnglishhere.”Anunderlyingthought,notexpressedbutoperative,wouldbe,“realintellectualworkproceedsinEnglish.”EveryChinascholarhasseen,Iamsure,examplesofChinesenativespeakersstrugglingtopresenttheirresearchinEnglishinordertofitthenormsofhow“serious”intellectualworkisdone.ThiseffortreacheseventotheextentofdeliberatelymispronouncingChinesenamesinthewaysinwhichnativespeakersofEnglishnormallymispronouncethem. AnotherkindofresponsewouldbetopraisetheuseofChinese:whataboldinnovation,whatanexceptionaldisplayofbrillianceandshowofrespectforChineseculture!
Butthevolumeoftheapplause,I’mafraid,wouldonlyunderscorehowunusualthepatternisandwillcontinuetobe.