Ideographic Myth: Inconsistencies in the Critique

Keywords: Ideographic Myth, critique, John DeFrancis,

Victor Mair, J. Marshall Unger, Lawrence J. Howell

Terminology used with respect to the Critique of the Ideographic Myth has been

inconsistent.

In “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy,” John DeFrancis defines the

Ideographic Myth as the

“... concept of Chinese writings as a means of conveying ideas without regard to

speech.”

Next, let's review Victor Mair's definition of this myth (taken from his Foreword to

the book by J. Marshall Unger noted below):

“... the notion that Chinese characters directly convey meaning without any reference

to specific languages and cultural contexts.”

Now let's listen to Unger (“Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of

Disembodied Meaning”; pg. 2):

“The source of all the confusion is what DeFrancis calls the Ideographic Myth, the

notion that Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without reference to

language (that is, speech) in any way.”

Assuming that the late DeFrancis would not object to having “Chinese writings”

rendered “Chinese characters,” we can turn our attention to some significant

differences between these three versions of the ideographic myth.

Let's consider the way Mair and Unger rework DeFrancis' definition. First, note the

similarity between the following passages:

Mair: “... the notion that Chinese characters directly convey meaning without any

reference to ...”

Unger: “... the notion that Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without

reference to ...”

One wonders whether it is Mair modeling his definition after Unger's, or vice-versa.

Now, whereas Mair continues by substituting “meaning” for “ideas” and “specific

languages and cultural contexts” for “speech,” Unger's amendments are limited to

the retention of “speech” while equating “speech” with “language.” It would be

interesting to learn from Unger why he felt the need for the parenthetical

clarification, but let us not be diverted.

Much more significant are the changes in nomenclature introduced by Mair. Perhaps

he would argue that substituting “meaning” for “ideas” and “specific languages and

cultural contexts” for “speech” makes no significant difference in this context. If so,

I'll be greatly interested to hear him elucidate that particular line of reasoning.

Now addressing both Mair and Unger, I would like to reiterate the question I posed

Mair in my Response: What exactly is the Ideographic Myth? Can the two of you

agree on a latter-day definition of the Ideographic Myth that 1) is not qualitatively

different from that of DeFrancis and 2) does not undermine the claim that DeFrancis

debunked this myth in “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy”?

While on the subject of Unger's book, this sub-page of Unger's faculty listing at Ohio

State University is worth a look. Here we find Unger suggesting we imagine that

“... the Chinese came up with a completely artificial writing system that can denote

every thought you could ever express in any of the world's languages without any

reference to human speech whatsoever!”

He immediately reveals that

“Something is obviously wrong with this story, and Ideogram explains what.”

I can tell you what is obviously wrong. What is obviously wrong is the pretense that

opposition to the Critique of the Ideographic Myth compels assent to this absurd

proposition. Unger's construction is a straw man, bad enough, but it also reprises

DeFrancis' use of the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma. It is also a second

instance of Unger and Mair parroting each other's ideas (recall their respective

definitions of the Ideographic Myth); here, we see Unger repackaging Mair's phrase

“... the notion that Chinese characters directly convey meaning without any reference

to specific languages and cultural contexts” in a form more likely to appeal to

unversed, potential buyers of Unger's book.

Thus we see the Critique of the Ideographic Myth advanced by means of inconsistent

terminology, with cross-pollinated hype and yet another instance of fallacious logic

sprinkled into the brew.

Lawrence J. Howell

7 April 2012

Adapted from a post originally uploaded to the Kanji Networks Blog