Chinese “Dialects” and European “Languages”: A Comparison of Lexico-Phonetic and Syntactic Distances

In this article, we tested some specific claims made in the literature on relative distances among European languages and among Chinese dialects, suggesting that some language varieties within the Sinitic family traditionally called dialects are, in fact, more linguistically distant from one another than some European varieties that are traditionally called languages. More generally, we examined whether distances among varieties within and across European language families were larger than those within and across Sinitic language varieties. To this end, we computed lexico-phonetic as well as syntactic distance measures for comparable language materials in six Germanic, five Romance and six Slavic languages, as well as for six Mandarin and nine non-Mandarin (‘southern’) Chinese varieties. Lexico-phonetic distances were expressed as the length-normalized MPI-weighted Levenshtein distances computed on the 100 most frequently used nouns in the 32 language varieties. Syntactic distance was implemented as the (complement of) the Pearson correlation coefficient found for the PoS trigram frequencies established for a parallel corpus of the same four texts translated into each of the 32 languages. The lexico-phonetic distances proved to be relatively large and of approximately equal magnitude in the Germanic, Slavic and non-Mandarin Chinese language varieties. However, the lexico-phonetic distances among the Romance and Mandarin languages were considerably smaller, but of similar magnitude. Cantonese (Guangzhou dialect) was lexico-phonetically as distant from Standard Mandarin (Beijing dialect) as European language pairs such as Portuguese–Italian, Portuguese–Romanian and Dutch–German. Syntactically, however, the differences among the Sinitic varieties were about ten times smaller than the differences among the European languages, both within and across the families—which provides some justification for the Chinese tradition of calling the Sinitic varieties dialects of the same language.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Languages
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10060127
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Linguistics and language evolution
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.42
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Chinese “Dialects” and European “Languages”: A Comparison of Lexico-Phonetic and Syntactic Distances

Charlotte Gooskens, Wilbert Heeringa, Vincent J. van Heuven, Chaoju Tang
1 citations
Languages
Linguistics and language evolution
10.42
article

Chinese “Dialects” and European “Languages”: A Comparison of Lexico-Phonetic and Syntactic Distances

Charlotte Gooskens, Wilbert Heeringa, Vincent J. van Heuven, Chaoju Tang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In this article, we tested some specific claims made in the literature on relative distances among European languages and among Chinese dialects, suggesting that some language varieties within the Sinitic family traditionally called dialects are, in fact, more linguistically distant from one another than some European varieties that are traditionally called languages. More generally, we examined whether distances among varieties within and across European language families were larger than those within and across Sinitic language varieties. To this end, we computed lexico-phonetic as well as syntactic distance measures for comparable language materials in six Germanic, five Romance and six Slavic languages, as well as for six Mandarin and nine non-Mandarin (‘southern’) Chinese varieties. Lexico-phonetic distances were expressed as the length-normalized MPI-weighted Levenshtein distances computed on the 100 most frequently used nouns in the 32 language varieties. Syntactic distance was implemented as the (complement of) the Pearson correlation coefficient found for the PoS trigram frequencies established for a parallel corpus of the same four texts translated into each of the 32 languages. The lexico-phonetic distances proved to be relatively large and of approximately equal magnitude in the Germanic, Slavic and non-Mandarin Chinese language varieties. However, the lexico-phonetic distances among the Romance and Mandarin languages were considerably smaller, but of similar magnitude. Cantonese (Guangzhou dialect) was lexico-phonetically as distant from Standard Mandarin (Beijing dialect) as European language pairs such as Portuguese–Italian, Portuguese–Romanian and Dutch–German. Syntactically, however, the differences among the Sinitic varieties were about ten times smaller than the differences among the European languages, both within and across the families—which provides some justification for the Chinese tradition of calling the Sinitic varieties dialects of the same language.

LanguagesVol. 10(6)
Leiden University (NL), University of Pannonia (HU), University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN), University of Groningen (NL), Fryske Akademy (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Linguistics and language evolution
10.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.