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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 250-269 |
| Number of pages | 20 |
| Journal | Language and Communication |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue number | 3-4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2006 Jul 1 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -