Response paper: The Ideographic Myth

Response Paper
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Response Paper
The assigned reading, “The Ideographic Myth” is the first chapter John DeFrancis, The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Generally, the book offers the concepts underlying the Chinese language and writing system. The author eventually offers his position on various ideas regarding the language. In this chapter, DeFrancis demonstrates that Chinese characters are a phonetic, not ideographic system of writing. He attempts to demonstrate that no such thing as an ideographic system writing has existed or will ever exist. In this response paper, I will demonstrate areas that I agree with DeFrancis’ arguments and where I disagree.
Summary
DeFrancis begins commences by describing the origin of the myth that Chinese writings convey concepts directly to the mind and hence bypassing the intermediary of speech. He indicates that the writings of Catholic missionaries in the 16th Century stimulated Western intellectuals towards this direction. For instance, Portuguese Dominican Friar Gaspar da Cruz in 1569 noted that the Chinese lack fixed letters in their writings. Instead, each character represents a particular thing, such that you have a specific character for everything. Despite the notion that Chinese writing conveys ideas without regard to sound, DeFrancis notes that no special name seems to have been coined for it. As Such, DeFrancis objects to the term “ideographic.” He criticizes scholars of the Chinese language who neglect the phonological aspect of writing and for indicating that the development of the Chinese language set it apart from the rest of the languages. Hence, a correct position would be that Chinese characters represent words and not ideas. While they represent words, DeFrancis demonstrates that they do it phonetically just like the other writing systems in the world. The author concludes by noting that the term “ideographic” is popularized by two types of individuals. The first category is those who promote their usage when referencing Chinese characters. The second category consists of those who do not necessarily agree with the concept but use the term habitually when designating Chinese characters. DeFrancis does not claim perfection in the usage of the term when referring to Chinese characters. Instead, DeFrancis accepts that he has in the past used the term wrongly without knowing the damage it can cause.
What I agree with
I agree with DeFrancis that the concept of ideas bypassing speech to enter into the mind directly is misleading. In any language, the system of symbols cannot directly convey meaning without sound. Categorizing Chinese characters as an ideographic system of writing is elevating Chinese and making it superior to the other languages. Hence, since Chinese is no different from the rest of the languages in the world, DeFrancis is right that Chinese characters are not ideographic, rather they are phonetic. Such a language that bypasses the intermediary of sound has not existed in the past and will not be in the future.
Additionally, DeFrancis is right to call the notion of Chinese characters being ideographic as a myth. As the author demonstrates, Western fascinatio...