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