Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:30:43.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Mandarin loanwords in contemporary English

The influence of transcription systems on orthography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2019

Zhen Wu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

English vocabulary has expanded over centuries by ‘borrowing’ lexical items from other languages (Katamba, 2005; Durkin, 2014). Compared with European languages, non-European languages are never major sources of word borrowing in English, with Chinese staying even more peripheral. Scholars have recorded no more than a few hundred English words of Chinese origin. This, however, does not make it easier to study the etymology and semantics of Chinese loanwords. The complication arises from the various source dialects from which Chinese words were borrowed (Mandarin, Cantonese, Amoy, Hokkien, etc.) and also from transcription processes, in which Chinese logograms are ‘romanised’ into phonetic representations so as to be readable for English speakers. It is a procedure easily affected by the transcribers' own cognition and the transcription systems employed, and the arbitrariness of the above variables contributes much to the fact that the orthography of Chinese loanwords, especially those entering the English language early, are prone to changes. This article aims to shed some light on how the ways of transcription may affect the spelling of Chinese loanwords.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 23 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the postgraduate forum ‘Workshopping words and opening dialogues’ at the University of Sussex in June 2018. I am grateful to Prof. Bas Aarts, Dr. Kathryn Allan and Prof. Lynne Murphy for their inspiring comments. I would also like to thank Dr. Andrew Moody for his suggestions on an earlier draft of the present paper.

References

Anderson, O. 1970. A Concordance to Five Systems of Transcription for Standard Chinese. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
Boberg, C. 1997. ‘Variation in the nativization of foreign [a] in English.’ University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(1), 229–58.Google Scholar
Brooks, E. B. & Keliher, M. 2002. ‘Chinese romanization as a political problem.’ Online at http://www.umass.edu/wsp/resources/recommendations/romanization/political.html (Accessed November 20, 2018).Google Scholar
Chan, M. & Kwok, H. 1985. A Study of Lexical Borrowing from Chinese into English with Special Reference to Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune. 1979. ‘Tribune will adopt new system of Chinese spelling.’ March 11, A1.Google Scholar
Clement, A. 2002. ‘Pinyin romanisation for OPAC retrieval – Is everyone being served?’ Information Technology and Libraries, 21(2), 45–50.Google Scholar
Cruz–Cabanillas, I. 2008. ‘Chinese loanwords in the OED.’ Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 44, 253–74.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2013. Spell it out. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Durkin, P. 2014. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes–Harb, R. & Cheng, H. 2016. ‘The influence of the Pinyin and Zhuyin writing systems on the acquisition of Mandarin word forms by native English speakers.’ Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, X. & Xu, F. 2016. ‘The Romanisation of Chinese language.’ Review of Asian and Pacific Studies, 41, 99–111.Google Scholar
Giles, H. A. 1892. A Chinese-English Dictionary. London; Shanghai: B. Quaritch.Google Scholar
Katamba, F. 2005. English Words (2nd edn.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lü, C. 2017. ‘The roles of Pinyin skill in English-Chinese biliteracy learning: Evidence from Chinese emersion learners.’ Foreign Language Annals, 50(2), 306–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, L. 1978. ‘Peking becomes Beijing: China wants world to join new spelling system.’ Los Angeles Times, December 11, A8.Google Scholar
Moody, A. 1996. ‘Transmission language and source languages of Chinese borrowings in English.’ American Speech, 71, 405–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2018. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com (Accessed April 9, 2018).Google Scholar
Peperkamp, S. 2005. ‘A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations.’ Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 30(1), 351–62.Google Scholar
Simon, W. 1942. The New Official Chinese Latin Script Gwoyeu Romatzyh: Tables, Rules, Illustrative Examples. London: Arthur Probsthain.Google Scholar
Wade, T.F. 1867. Yü-yen Tzu-erh Chi. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A. & Liu, Y. 2005. ‘Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer.’ Cognition, 97, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, M. & Tian, C. 2017. ‘Is “NBA” Chinese or English?’ English Today, 33(4), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J. 2009. ‘Chinese borrowings in English.’ World Englishes, 28(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. 1992. ‘Chinese romanization change: A study on user preference.’ Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 15(2), 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, C. & Jiang, Y. 2004. ‘Wailaici and English borrowings in Chinese.’ English Today, 20(3), 45–52.Google Scholar
Zhu, K. 2011. On Chinese-English contact through loanwords. English Language and Literature Studies, 1(2), 100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar