Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- 19 Transnational Standards of Languages
- 20 Standardization across State Boundaries
- 21 Language Modernization in the Chinese Character Cultural Sphere
- 22 Linguistic Norms, Centre–Periphery Dynamics and the Tension between Uniformity and Diversity in Processes of Standardization
- 23 When Ethnic Boundaries and Language Boundaries Mismatch
- 24 The Standardization of a Stateless Language
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
21 - Language Modernization in the Chinese Character Cultural Sphere
China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam
from Part IV - Beyond the National
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- Part IV Beyond the National
- 19 Transnational Standards of Languages
- 20 Standardization across State Boundaries
- 21 Language Modernization in the Chinese Character Cultural Sphere
- 22 Linguistic Norms, Centre–Periphery Dynamics and the Tension between Uniformity and Diversity in Processes of Standardization
- 23 When Ethnic Boundaries and Language Boundaries Mismatch
- 24 The Standardization of a Stateless Language
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This chapter delineates lexical modernization in four states (Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam) where the writing system allowed for modernization and standardization to evolve transculturally. Japan, as the first ever non-Western country to modernize, served in many aspects as a model for how terminological gaps could be filled in the wake of modernization in East Asia. Script played a crucial role therein. Chinese characters have historically been used in all four polities discussed here, and what is more, this script allows for an easy spread of newly coined works due to its morpho-semantic character. The fact that these written terms can then be read differently in each of these four polities also allows these graphic loanwords to appear as original to the language in which they are used. The spread of Sino-Japanese modern terminology in East Asia via Chinese script characters shows that script has repercussions on language modernization. This pleremic script system serves as a transcultural and transnational resource.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 576 - 596Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alves, M. J. (2001). What’s so Chinese about Vietnamese? In Thurgood, G. W., ed., Papers from the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society. Tempe: Arizona State University, pp. 221–42.Google Scholar
Annamalai, E. (2005). Communities with ‘underdeveloped languages’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. & Trudgill, P., eds., Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1543–5.Google Scholar
Auroux, S., Körner, E. F. K., Niederehe, H. J. & Versteegh, K., eds. (2000). History of the Language Sciences, Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carroll, T. (2001). Language Planning and Language Change in Japan. Richmond, VA: Curzon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. (1996). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (2016). Guardians of Language: Twenty Voices through History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, J. (1977). Colonialism and Language Policy in Viet Nam. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, J. (1984). The Chinese Language: Facts and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Eom, I. S. (2015). 2,200 years of language contact between Korean and Chinese. In Wang, W. S. Y. & Sun, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 226–35.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1974). Language modernization and planning in comparison with other types of national modernization and planning. In Fishman, J. A., ed., Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: De Gruyter, pp. 79–101.Google Scholar
Garvin, P. L. (1993). A conceptual framework for the study of language standardization. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 100/101, 37–54.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, N. (1995). Kanji Politics: Language Policy and Japanese Script. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, N. & Chen, P., eds. (2001). Language Planning and Language Policy: East Asian Perspectives. Richmond, VA: Curzon.Google Scholar
Heinrich, P. (2002). The Rezeption der westlichen Linguistik im Modernen Japan. Munich: Iudcium.Google Scholar
Heinrich, P. (2012). The Making of Monolingual Japan: Language Ideology and Japanese Modernity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Heinrich, P. (2014). Visions of community: Japanese language spread in Japan, Taiwan and Korea. Internationales Asienforum, 44, 105–31.Google Scholar
Henshū I’inkai, ed. (2002). Kanji bunkaken no moji nashonarizumu [Script Nationalism in the Chinese Character Sphere]. Tokyo: Sangensha.Google Scholar
Hirai, M. (1998). Kokugo kokuji mondai no rekishi [The History of National Language and National Script Problems]. Tokyo: Sangensha.Google Scholar
Iwatsuki, J. (2013). Neologisms in Japanese and Vietnamese. Focusing on new Chinese-based vocabulary. Internationales Asienforum, 44, 259–69.Google Scholar
King, R. (1998). Nationalism and language reform in Korea: the questione della lingua in precolonial Korea. In Tangherlini, T. & Pai, H. I., eds., Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Berkeley, CA: University of Berkeley Press, pp. 33–72.Google Scholar
King, R. (2007). Language and national identity in the Koreas. In Simpson, A., ed., Language and National Identity in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 200–34.Google Scholar
King, R. (2014). Introduction: Koh Jongsok’s infected language. In Koh, J., ed., Infected Korean Language: Purity versus Hybridity. Amherst, MA: Cambria Press, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Koh, J. (2014). Infected Korean Language: Purity versus Hybridity. Translated and with a critical introduction by King, Ross. Amherst, MA: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. M. & Ramsey, R. S. (2011). A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo Bianco, J. (2001). Viet Nam: Quoc Ngu, colonialism and language policy. In Gottlieb, N. & Chen, P., eds., Language Planning and Language Policy. East Asian Perspectives. Richmond: Curzon, pp. 159–206.Google Scholar
Marr, D. G. (1984). Vietnamese Tradition on Trial, 1920–1945. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Masini, F. (1993). The Formation of Modern Chinese Lexicon and its Evolution toward a National Language: The Period from 1840 to 1898. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley University Press.Google Scholar
Morioka, K. (1969). Kindaigo no seiritsu [The Establishment of Modern Language]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Murakami, R. & Imai, A. (2010) Gendai betonamugo ni okeru kan’etsugo no kenkyū [A study of Sino-Vietnamese lexicon in modern Vietnamese]. To¯kyo¯ gaidai to¯nan ajiagaku [Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Southeast Asia Studies], 15, 19–32.Google Scholar
Neustupný, J. V. (2005) Sociolinguistic aspects of social modernization. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. & Trudgill, P., eds, Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Vol. III. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 2209–23.Google Scholar
Ōkubo, T. (1972). Mori Arinori zenshu¯ [Collected Works of Mori Arinori]. Tokyo: Senbundō Shoten.Google Scholar
Ramsey, R. S. (1987). The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ramsey, R. S. (2006). Korean in contact with Japanese. In Sohn, H. M., ed., Korean Language in Culture and Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 57–62.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C. K. (2009). Loanwords in Japanese. In Haspelmath, M. & Tadmor, U., eds., Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gryuter Mouton, pp. 545–74.Google Scholar
Smakman, D. & Heinrich, P. eds. (2015). Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H. M. (2006). Korean in contact with Chinese. In Sohn, H. M., ed., Korean Language in Culture and Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 44–56.Google Scholar
Yanabu, A. (1991). Modernisierung der Sprache: Eine kulturhistorische Studie u¨ber westliche Begriffe im japanischen Wortschatz (translated from Japanese by Coulmas, F.). Munich: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Yeon, J. H. (2006). ‘Standard language’ and ‘cultured language’. In Sohn, H.-M., ed., Korean Language in Culture and Society. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 30–43.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by