Ideographic Myth: A Response to Victor Mair

Thoughts Regarding the Critique and its Consequences for Interpretation of Chinese Characters
Keywords: ideograph, ideographic, myth, critique, phononoemaphore, Chinese characters, Victor Mair, Lawrence J. Howell, John DeFrancis, Chinese Language, Fact and Fantasy, J. Marshall Unger

Dr. Mair, In a Language Log post of 14 January 2012 (Phonosymbolism and Phonosemantics in Chinese) you magnanimously critique my views regarding Chinese characters. Having one's work situated in the context of studies carried out by leading Sinologists is truly an honor. Having it situated by a scholar of your eminence renders it an honor of the highest order. Your post begins by referencing the late John DeFrancis and his treatment of the ideographic myth in The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. This publication is deservedly praised by specialists and general readers alike for dissecting and dismissing popular misconceptions about Chinese, misconceptions that DeFrancis labels myths. That said, the chapter on the ideographic myth is by a considerable margin the least persuasive in the book. The only concrete supporting evidence DeFrancis furnishes for his conclusion that Chinese characters represent words (or better, morphemes), not ideas, and they represent them phonetically, for the most part... is the phenomenon in Old Sinitic according to which some characters (no more than five per cent) acquired meanings unrelated to their original ones. In the absence of a compelling argument clearly appertaining to the vast majority of characters that are unaffected by borrowing (such as those we will be examining below), your claims that DeFrancis debunked or demolished the ideographic myth are, with all due

respect, hyperbolic. On the subject of turgid language, I find the heated rhetoric associated with the critique more than a little curious. Consider the first paragraph of your Foreword to J. Marshall Unger's Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning, which is characterized by truculent, even bellicose terminology: pernicious lies and nave myths that swirl around the sinograms; ubiquitous and outrageous tall tales concerning the sinograms; ... embattled warriors do their best to combat them. We can find DeFrancis using similarly contentious language (or plain speaking, if you prefer). For his part, Unger (in his 1993 reply to Hansen) takes things to an extreme with the discreditable use of argumentum ad hominem. The degree of stridency with which the critique has been advanced strikes me as disproportionate for a theory about language and writing; this style of disputation is more often seen in cases where something much greater is at stake. One more important point regarding the critique: What exactly is the Ideographic Myth? DeFrancis calls it the ... concept of Chinese writings as a means of conveying ideas without regard to speech. In the Foreword to Unger mentioned above you say it is ... the notion that Chinese characters directly convey meaning without any reference to specific languages and cultural contexts. I'll work with your formula, as it is considerably more precise. Let's equate specific languages and cultural contexts with appropriate referents, creating an affirmative statement: Chinese characters convey meaning with reference to the Sino-Tibetan languages and to Han culture. Anything objectionable about this? Now, if the characters are conveying meaning, I'm greatly interested in learning how you would harmonize that with DeFrancis' assertion that Chinese characters are a phonetic, not an ideographic system of writing ... To segue into the main topic of this letter, I propose to offer evidence that adherence

to the critique impedes our understanding of Chinese characters. Let us see what may be revealed by a point/counterpoint comparison of our views, based on your Language Log post of 6 February 2012 (The Unpredictability of Chinese Character Formation and Pronunciation). Victor H. Mair: ... approximately 85% of all Chinese characters do give some hints about how they are to be pronounced and / or what they mean, but these are vague and imprecise hints only. For instance, it is easy for me to think of two dozen characters that include fng ("place; region; square; regular; upright; honest; side, party; easy; rule; means; comparison; method, way; prescription; only when; then; just, still") as a phonophore having the following pronunciations: fng, fng, fng, fng, png. In most of these cases, the basic meaning of fng has no perceivable bearing on the meaning of the character, but is being used strictly for its sound, which although spread across all four tones and a fifth related pronunciation is actually more regular than many other phonophores. Lawrence J. Howell: The question of whether or not the basic meaning of a phononoemaphore (sound-concept bearer; this is how I will style phonophores from here on) has a perceivable bearing on the meaning of compound characters depends on how one defines the basic meaning. If we intend a basic meaning in current usage, we will not infrequently be disappointed, but as it happens the seventh in the list of the meanings you present for (side) has some relevance. As Axel Schuessler notes (ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese; pg. 231), the basic meaning (that is, the fundamental, original sense) of fng as applied to was two boats lashed side by side. This explains why we find the conceptual influence spread right and left (or in all directions) in compound characters with the phononoemaphore . Compare: (S = Signific [preferable to radical]. Glosses after are for usage in modern Chinese. Japanese meanings may differ. Present meanings are occasionally the result of extension from the original sense.)

 fng (S: Earth) Spreading earth of an embankment lane; urban sector fng (S: Grass/Plant) Spreading fragrance of plants fragrant fng (S: Piled Earth) Spreading, defensive embankment defend; protect; prevent fng (S: Sun) Spreading sunlight daybreak; dawn fng (S: Door; Room) (Rooms of a) Spreading residence room; house; building fng (S: Action Indicator) Spread in all directions release; let off/out/free; put fng (S: Thread) Spread threads in spinning spin; woven (silk) fabric fng (S: Words/Speech) Spread out in calling upon or making inquiries visit; call on; look in on; look into; inquire fng (S: Boat) Boats spreading in being moored to each other two boats lashed together; large/luxurious boat ( was devised to replace after came to indicate side; direction etc.) The example of is normative in that we find the phononoemaphore functioning conceptually (conveying spread right and left) as opposed to conveying a basic meaning of the independent character (place, region, square etc.). VHM: I can also easily think of two dozen other characters in which fng is the radical (Kangxi no. 70). In these cases, fng occasionally has vague semantic significance (though it is usually so hidden as to be essentially useless for figuring out the actual meaning of a character in which it appears), and often it is only considered the radical for the purpose of looking up the character by the shape of fng , without regard to its meaning. LJH: Actually, most of the characters we find in dictionaries assigned to the classifier are composed not from fng but rather from yn (original sense: marching soldiers accompanied by a banner or military standard). In compounds, the element is of course elevated to the top right of the graph and written in variant

style. This confusion between and stems from the reduction of the 540 classifiers used in Shuowen Jiezi to the 214 of Zhu. While on the subject, allow me to note that although a handful of characters appear to feature as a signific, etymologically this is not so. is an abbreviated form of + two parallel lines. In , is properly not the signific but the phononoemaphore. is a variant of . is an alternate form of . In , is an abbreviated form of , as is evident from the meanings pennon; flag. Returning to characters assigned to the classifier , what we observe is the conceptual influence of the various phononoemaphores plus the semantic influence pennant; banner via the signific, which is not but . Compare: (P = Concept conveyed by the phononoemaphore. Glosses after are for usage in modern Chinese. Japanese meanings may differ. Present meanings are occasionally the result of extension from the original sense.) (P: Red; Cinnabar) Red banner silk/felt banner (P: Fine strands of hair; Fine) Pennant/banner with a long-haired yak tail attached banner with animal's tail attached (P: Split) Swallow-tailed pennant/banner pennant; flag; banner (P: Point in different directions) Flag splitting away from its pole in rotating/revolving about it revolve; loop about (P: Fresh) Pennant composed of a string of vivid (= freshly colored) feathers banner; signal; manifest (P: Arrow) Arrows piled beneath the fluttering pennant of a clan/tribe clan; group; tribe; race; ethnicity; nationality (P: Rectangular) Square/rectangular flag, pennant or banner pennant; flag; banner (P: Spread) Flat, pennant or banner spreading in a breeze pennant; flag; banner Before proceeding to your next point it may be worthwhile to list the

phononoemaphores that appear with the signific in the characters above. To the right are appended additional characters with the same phononoemaphore and bearing the same conceptual influence. : Red; Cinnabar : Fine strands of hair; Fine : Split : Point in different directions : Fresh : Arrow : Rectangular : Spread I should note that a single phononoemaphore may convey distinct though related concepts, such as when suggests birth; life in or but fresh (connected with fresh, newborn life) in and . VHM: I can, moreover, identify nearly another two dozen characters in which fng , as incorporated in the derived phonophore png ("side"), serves as the secondary phonophore, where has the following pronunciations png, png, png, bng, bng. In a couple of these characters where png is the phonophore, one may with effort detect the secondary semantic notion of "side", but the overall meaning is more often than not vaguely related to the various radicals under which these characters fall. LJH: was originally (spread right and left) + two horizontal lines + split right and left, indicating the two sides of the body. That explains why, in compound characters with the phononoemaphore , the conceptual influence is both sides, not simply side. Compare: (S = Signific; glosses after are for usage in modern Chinese; Japanese meanings may differ. Present meanings are occasionally the result

of extension from the original sense.) bng (S: Person) Both sides of a person beside; near; proximate png (S: Water) Water flowing in torrents around both sides of an object voluminous or torrential flow bng (S: Hand/Action Indicator) Pole a boat, switching back and forth from one side to the other to row/pole; oar png (S: Movement) Be flanked (by retainers) in a procession accompany; wander bng (S: Tree/Wood) Placard/nameplate with writing on both sides placard (with names); list of names; (public) notice bng (S: Thin and Flat Piece) Tablet serving as a public notice, inscribed on both sides tablet; register; public notice bng (S: Flesh) The shoulder blades (on each side of the body) upper arm; shoulder; wing I submit that the overall meaning in these cases is strongly related to the phononoemaphore , with supplementary influence lent by the signific. VHM: In the final analysis, one must still rely on brute memorization to master the sounds and the meanings of the characters, though in some cases the radical may provide a slightly useful jog to the memory in recalling roughly what the character means. Similarly, probably in over half the cases the phonophore may provide a somewhat useful, yet often dim, hint about the pronunciation of the character. LJH: Regarding the meanings of the characters, I believe the examples cited above suggest that a more upbeat viewpoint is justified. Thus, The phononoemaphore is often highly suggestive of a character's meaning, while the signific nearly always offers a useful secondary hint at the character's meaning.

With respect to the sounds of the characters, I agree with your estimate about the number of cases in which the phononoemaphore offers a useful hint as to pronunciation, though the figure is higher for Japanese because of the relatively close adherence of the Sino-Japanese readings to Middle Chinese ones. Conclusion: Approaching the characters via a mindset faithful to the critique of the ideographic myth allows us to perceive only a fraction of what may be gleaned by other interpretive approaches. Thank you again, Dr. Mair, for your tremendous consideration. Lawrence J. Howell 9 March 2012 Kansai, Japan www.kanjinetworks.com