Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the "Ideographic Myth": Some proleptical remarks

David Lurie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Prominent in recent discussions of East Asian writing systems has been a metadiscursive polemic that can be labeled the Critique of the Ideographic Myth. Associated primarily with John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger, this is an attack on the notion that the Chinese writing system represents ideas directly, and more broadly an argument for the primacy of phonography in inscription in general. This paper considers the disciplinary framework of the Critique, tracing its roots in a prewar Sinological debate (the Boodberg-Creel controversy) and in Leonard Bloomfield's famous dismissal of writing, and locating it within the postwar field of Asian Studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)250-269
Number of pages20
JournalLanguage and Communication
Volume26
Issue number3-4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jul 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

myth
Language
language
dismissal
Writing Systems
Disciplinarity
Leonard Bloomfield
Language Writing
Asia
Chinese Writing System
Primacy
Attack
Asian Studies
carbosulfan

Keywords

  • Area studies
  • Asian studies
  • Bloomfieldian linguistics
  • History of writing systems
  • Ideography
  • Sinology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Communication
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the "Ideographic Myth" : Some proleptical remarks. / Lurie, David.

In: Language and Communication, Vol. 26, No. 3-4, 01.07.2006, p. 250-269.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{70f16200d79d4a27a7bb9ba6da07428c,
title = "Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the {"}Ideographic Myth{"}: Some proleptical remarks",
abstract = "Prominent in recent discussions of East Asian writing systems has been a metadiscursive polemic that can be labeled the Critique of the Ideographic Myth. Associated primarily with John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger, this is an attack on the notion that the Chinese writing system represents ideas directly, and more broadly an argument for the primacy of phonography in inscription in general. This paper considers the disciplinary framework of the Critique, tracing its roots in a prewar Sinological debate (the Boodberg-Creel controversy) and in Leonard Bloomfield's famous dismissal of writing, and locating it within the postwar field of Asian Studies.",
keywords = "Area studies, Asian studies, Bloomfieldian linguistics, History of writing systems, Ideography, Sinology",
author = "David Lurie",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.015",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "250--269",
journal = "Language and Communication",
issn = "0271-5309",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the "Ideographic Myth"

T2 - Some proleptical remarks

AU - Lurie, David

PY - 2006/7/1

Y1 - 2006/7/1

N2 - Prominent in recent discussions of East Asian writing systems has been a metadiscursive polemic that can be labeled the Critique of the Ideographic Myth. Associated primarily with John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger, this is an attack on the notion that the Chinese writing system represents ideas directly, and more broadly an argument for the primacy of phonography in inscription in general. This paper considers the disciplinary framework of the Critique, tracing its roots in a prewar Sinological debate (the Boodberg-Creel controversy) and in Leonard Bloomfield's famous dismissal of writing, and locating it within the postwar field of Asian Studies.

AB - Prominent in recent discussions of East Asian writing systems has been a metadiscursive polemic that can be labeled the Critique of the Ideographic Myth. Associated primarily with John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger, this is an attack on the notion that the Chinese writing system represents ideas directly, and more broadly an argument for the primacy of phonography in inscription in general. This paper considers the disciplinary framework of the Critique, tracing its roots in a prewar Sinological debate (the Boodberg-Creel controversy) and in Leonard Bloomfield's famous dismissal of writing, and locating it within the postwar field of Asian Studies.

KW - Area studies

KW - Asian studies

KW - Bloomfieldian linguistics

KW - History of writing systems

KW - Ideography

KW - Sinology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747369007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33747369007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.015

DO - 10.1016/j.langcom.2006.02.015

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33747369007

VL - 26

SP - 250

EP - 269

JO - Language and Communication

JF - Language and Communication

SN - 0271-5309

IS - 3-4

ER -