“Chinglish” Blocks
Posted on February 20, 2008 at 12:39 am by kyliu
Tags: china, chinglish, culture, english, john mcwhorter, languagelog, peer-see, racism, sinophobia, victor mair
Filed Under news | 9 Comments |
[Update: if you are coming here from peer-see, please note my response to him in the comments below.]
The Language Log has recently commented on a series of poorly-made children’s blocks from China that were designed (apparently) to teach children English. The blocks were made famous in a post from peer-see back in 2006.
A sample (taken from peer-see) should illustrate how bad these blocks are:
I’ve been hesitant to comment on any of the “Chinglish” posts from the Language Log.
The “Chinglish” label and most writing on the phenomenon seem to be centered around the idea of ridiculing the perceived poor English skills of the Chinese. [1] Often this spills over even into ridiculing well-intentioned attempts by the Chinese government to remedy the poor English signage found around Beijing in preparation for the Olympics. Boing Boing was running posts that ridiculed “Chinglish” so often that I had to stop reading it. Slashdot and Digg are not much better. The idea seems to be that the Chinese exist as mere foolish clowns for the entertainment of Westerners.
There is also a sense of xenophobia, and specifically, sinophobia, in some of the commentary. For example, here’s one picture and peer-see’s comment:
The technical term for an overhead projector is an epidiascope, but have you ever heard anybody call it that? And I know you are used to calling it a satellite, but you’d be wise to learn the new phrase. 1.3 billion people are about to change your language.
English, of course, has changed and grown as it moved around the world. Would you say that 1.1 billion Indians are about to change “your” language because they refer to 100,000 as a lakh? Would you say that 20 million Australians are about to change “your” language because they refer to a large male kangaroo as a “boomer”? If not, then why would you make the above comment about the Chinese? English doesn’t “belong” to anyone, and the Chinese are not about to change the way you speak (never mind the fact this error isn’t even likely to spread among the Chinese). This is the rhetoric of the yellow peril.
(I should note that the sinophobia extends to Hong Kong and Singapore. While I’ve observed few Americans to have derogatory things to say about Indian English, I’ve observed numerous instances of such comments about Hong Kong and Singapore English.)
The Language Log has generally been better about this than most. Rarely do contributors engage in overtly prejudiced commentary. When they do make a comment specifically about the Chinese, they generally take care to qualify their statement. In this particular post, for example, Mark Liberman makes the following observation:
[T]he hypothetical Chinese blocks-designer must be not only innocent of English, but also pretty inept at bilingual dictionary usage. Of course, we’ve seen plenty of evidence that Brits and Americans — even highly cultured intellectuals — can be lexicographically challenged in surprising ways. Still, the Chinese seem to be unusually careless in their approach to such things.
This is a fair comment. I suspect that this is the result both of the lack of knowledge of English and the low level of hanzi literacy in China generally. There’s no shame in that. The level of education in China is low, and is likely to remain low for many decades due to lack of investment by the government. Combine that with a reliance on translation software, and it’s not hard to see how this could have happened. (Read on for some more details.)
As another aside, I want to note in particular that John McWhorter, one of the contributors at the Language Log, has written an eloquent condemnation of the jokes about “Chinglish” at the expense of the Chinese:
So, I “get” the joys of “off” English. However, I get itchy when the Wall Street Journal article depicts Westerners bemoaning “the loss of a source of amusement” in the cleaning up of Beijing’s funny signs. A certain strain in nominally bien-pensant Westerner thought treats other cultures as diverting dioramas in neglect of remembering that the people in question are human beings with the same needs for dignity as we cherish.
…
There is some of this in the idea that Beijingers should preserve their funny English signs to amuse Westerners blowing through. Anyone who sees any sophistication in this, I presume, would have no problem with the notion of signs in hilariously bad Chinese plastered all over New York or San Francisco.
This is not to say that the Language Log speaks with one voice. Victor Mair, a frequent contributor to the Language Log, has on occasion taken on a patronizing tone similar to that exhibited in Boing Boing posts, speaking of “the proliferating Chinglish that leaves us all breathless.” [2]
I have refrained from being too upset with the Language Log, however, because I share with them a primary interest in the fascinating ways in which language is adapted, used, and changed by different people with different needs while retaining essentially universal characteristics. When the linguists poke fun at the Chinese, I think it is mostly well-intentioned.
In any event, though I find some of Victor Mair’s posts abrasive, he is, above all, a scholar, and while he might ridicule the Chinese on occasion, his first duty is to understand a phenomenon like Chinglish. He has finally managed to track down (though he is mainly quoting the work of Chinese forum posters) the source for much of the incredibly crude English translations you see on Chinese menus, signs, etc. (in this particular image, he’s showing how the character 干 (which should be thought of as a stem rather than a word by itself since its meaning is radically different depending on the word it appears in) often gets mistranslated into “fuck”).
It’s the work of an old version of a popular machine-translation program. A program like this would help explain the terrible blocks from peer-see as well.
Footnotes:
[1] The Chinglish phenomenon is the anti-Chinese version of the anti-Japanese “Engrish” phenomenon, which has, I think, run its course for the most part. I should also make it clear here that I absolutely condemn the jokes that Li Yang (李阳) tells, purporting to ridicule the accents of Japanese speakers of English, as part of his “Crazy English” sessions. These practices are despicable, no matter who engages in them. [↑]
[2] Victor Mair has often commented on the extent to which he believes English has become a de facto lingua franca in China due to the poor hanzi literacy in China. He may be exaggerating the phenomenon somewhat, but there is a kernel of truth to it. Much like the way the young, urban Chinese in Taiwan have peppered their speech with English for decades, it is not hard to see the same thing happening (or has already happened) to the Chinese in Beijing and Shanghai. I, of course, question the extent to which people in these cities should be considered “Chinese,” but that is a separate discussion. [↑]
Related posts
Comments
9 Responses to ““Chinglish” Blocks”
Leave a Reply
Oh, wow. I thought the typos on food packaging and stationery sets were bad but this…
Doesn’t “gan” mean “do”? I wonder why the translator has to resort to the English-slang connotation of “do.”
Well, regarding the blocks, “chopper” wasn’t too bad compared to the rest of the ones shown. I actually found that one quite amusing
Your accusations of sinophobia are unfounded. A post on my feelings on Chinglish and changes in language was linked in the comments for anyone interested, and I link it above. Declaring my commentary xenophobic or racist is rash finger-pointing, and it’s inappropriate.
I should clarify that I did not, in fact, accuse peer-see of racism. I noted that “there is a sense of xenophobia, and specifically, sinophobia, in some of the commentary.” I then pointed to a specific statement peer-see made as an *example* of the same sort of commentary I see in lots of places. I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all to say that that specific comment gives a sense of xenophobia and sinophobia. It does. But that does not mean I am accusing the blog of racism in general.
I just read the other entry cited by peer-see, and I agree that it offers some balance for the comment I highlighted, and gives a more complete understanding of peer-see’s viewpoint on this issue (though I will point out that the other entry involves an example of non-standard English generated not by the Chinese, but by Western marketers working in China, so it is really an example of “pseudo-Chinglish,” with its own problematic implications as to Western attitudes to the Chinese). But that still doesn’t change the sense the reader will get from reading the comment I highlighted in my post, standing alone.
It would be better if we can always read every single written statement in the context of the author’s entire body of writing and thoughts. But that is not always possible, and the Internet has a tendency to isolate what we write into small sound bites. It doesn’t hurt to be reminded, once in a while, how something we write can be taken to have a more sinister meaning than we intended when read in isolation. (I intend this comment to apply to peer-see and myself equally.)
Surely this is missing the point slightly. The manufacturers of the blocks set out to make a learning aid. I wouldn’t ridicule you or anyone else for not being able to (for example) spell every word in the dictionary. If you then went on to make a dictionary, spelling things however you reckon they’re spelled, I’d say you’d opened yourself up for criticism.
Additionally, having looked back over the original post, I can’t see anything racist or xenophobic in the captions, is it possibly a case of those who dwell on racism see it more clearly?
I know this is a long post but i want my point to be clear. They made the worlds first disinformation unlearning device, by mistake. They deserve my guffaws.
I’m not sure anyone can figure out kais’s point. But at this point, I’m going to summarize my feelings with this cartoon from xkcd:
OK, first off, I don’t think it’s fair to condemn that crack about “1.3 billion Chinese changing your language” as bigotry. Sinophobic, yes. Racist, no.
It’s a fact that the balance of power, population and wealth in the world is shifting in China’s favor while America tanks. This state of affairs is not an unqualified evil and America is not an innocent victim. Still, it gives Americans who have nothing against Chinese people a valid reason to fear China the world power–the only kind of fear I see in the comment. It’d be a shame if we could no longer have national interests just because of the competition’s skin color.
As for the analogy of badly translated Chinese signs in the US–we already have something far dumber. It’s the trendy use of random hanzi/kanji in graphic design. Of course it doesn’t escape me that the Westerners who mangle Asian languages for decoration are colonial throwbacks with their pith helmets up their asses…while Asians who do the same thing to European languages are learners trying their best in the face of oppressive ridicule. Tell me, are there two opposing schools of thought here, or just another case of “it’s only racist when whitey does it”?
Oh my god. Have you been living under a rock? Engrish/Chinglish/what-have-you-ish is the pastime of xenophilics, not xenophobics. And are you completely impervious to humor? The “you’d be wise to learn the new phrase” was obviously meant in humor. And it goes both ways – gee, think of that, Japanese people or Chinese people picking on the rampant (mis)use of their language in western culture? NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING! …Oh wait, yes I have. Seeing as it’s pretty common.
Humor regarding the misuse of language is humor regarding the misuse of language. And if you print ridiculous gibberish on something and then sell it, well, you’re opening yourself to ridicule no matter what your nationality.
L.B., you and evilbit should have a debate. And I’m definitely enjoying the humor here.
[...] More here… (warning, not for the delicate of [...]