Mandarin Dialect

While there may still be differences of opinion about the classification of these dozens of non-Sinitic Chinese languages, their existence mitigates strongly against the use of expressions like "the Chinese language". It is hard for me to think of any situations in which it would be proper to translate Zhongguo (de) yuyan in the singular as "Chinese language" except in an abstract, diachronic sense. It is even harder for me to imagine conditions under which Zhongguo (de) yuyan should be rendered as "the Chinese language". Once we obviate the fangyan / "dialect" problem, however, the issue of how to handle Zhongguo (de) yuyan essentially solves itself. The plural English form then becomes virtually obligatory.
A century ago, Uighur would have been thought of by Chinese scholars as a fangyan (of what we are unsure). Now it has been elevated to the status of an independent yu[yan]. Perhaps, in the future, the speech of Wenchow, Foochow, & Kaohsiung will similarly cease to be thought of as fangyan. Perhaps not. The real question for us now is whether they are dialects or languages. If they are dialects, then we must ask what language(s) they are dialects of and, if they are languages, then we are obliged to find out to which branch & group they belong. Simply to throw up our hands & say that "Chinese is different" is, to my mind, the height of irresponsibility. If we are going to rely on the "Chinese is different" ploy, then we should at least say precisely how it differs from the other language groups of the world. It is also irresponsible to seek refuge in the old canard that "written Chinese is the same for speakers of all Chinese 'dialects'", ergo Wenchow, Foochow, & Kaohsiung speech are "dialects" of "Chinese" because the elites of all three places could write mutually intelligible literary styles. Here we come smack up against the question of the relationship between language & script, between speech & writing. That, however, is the subject for another article.
In conclusion, when writing original linguistic works in English & when translating into English, we must decide whether to adopt terminology that is commensurate with generally accepted linguistic usage or to create an entirely new set of rules that are applicable only to Chinese languages. Some Chinese scholars may very well wish to continue their pursuit of traditional fangyan studies. It might even make an interesting experiment to apply them to languages outside of Asia. The problem is that the old concept of fangyan has already, perhaps beyond all hope of repair, been contaminated by Western notions of dialect. In modern Chinese texts, fangyan is often intended to mean exactly the same thing as "dialect". Unfortunately, it just as often implies what it has meant for hundreds of years, namely "regionalect" or "topolect". Or it may be a confused jumble of the old & the new. Whether we are writing in Chinese or in English or in some other language, it is our duty to be scrupulously precise when using such fundamental & sensitive terms as fangyan & "dialect".