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

研究成果: Article査読

8 被引用数 (Scopus)

抄録

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.

本文言語English
ページ(範囲)250-269
ページ数20
ジャーナルLanguage and Communication
26
3-4
DOI
出版ステータスPublished - 2006 7
外部発表はい

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • 社会心理学
  • 言語および言語学
  • 実験心理学および認知心理学
  • 通信
  • 言語学および言語

フィンガープリント

「Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the "Ideographic Myth": Some proleptical remarks」の研究トピックを掘り下げます。これらがまとまってユニークなフィンガープリントを構成します。

引用スタイル