Iconicity and Chinese Characters: Bidding Adieu to Little Green Men

Keywords: Iconicity, ideograph, ideogram, Chinese characters, etymology,

straw man, Lawrence J. Howell, phononoemagraph,

Geoffrey K. Pullum, J. Marshall Unger

The cover art of J. Marshall Unger's “Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of

Disembodied Meaning” shows a pair of little green men standing in front of a

drinking establishment. One points to a sign on which are written several Chinese

characters. His companion raises his arms in the apparently universal “Who-the-hell-

knows” gesture of non-comprehension. The illustration is intended to represent

pictorially the absurdity of “... the notion that Chinese characters represent meaning

directly, without reference to language (that is, speech) in any way” (as Unger writes

on page two of the book).

In a Language Log post of 25 January 2012, Geoffrey K. Pullum appropriates

another little green man to underscore the principle that “Chinese writing is not

iconic; the characters are not little pictures.” Pullum spotted this particular little green

man on a countdown timer; he (the little green man) was working his limbs

energetically, urging pedestrians in the crosswalk to follow suit and hurry up. Pullum

wishes to say that while the little green man himself is iconic, the Chinese character

跑 (run) is not.

Unger's proposition is, as I have noted elsewhere, a straw man argument. So is

Pullum's. Gentlemen and Scholars: Nobody worthy of your attention claims that

Chinese characters represent meaning directly, without regard to (a particular)

language, as though they were little pictures. It's time to banish these little green men

and the straw man argument along with them.

Let us consider the heart of the issue: the nature of Chinese characters. We can state

it in seven words:

Chinese characters are ideographic, but not ideographs.

The remainder of this essay is given over to a detailed explanation of this crucial

distinction.

A handful of characters have traditionally been regarded as ideographs: They were

created to represent ideas or concepts. One such example is 帝, the original sense of

which was a supreme god unifying heaven and earth. Two others would be 上 and 下,

the earliest forms of which suggested the meanings “above” and “below,”

respectively by depicting one line above (or below) another.

Several hundred among the existing characters were devised as pictographs,

representations of objects such as specific animals, body parts, features of the natural

world and so on. Examples include 鳥 bird, 耳 ear and 川 river.

That leaves thousands (even tens of thousands) of compound characters. These

characters combine two elements. One element, the signific, suggests the character's

meaning alone. The other element, the phononoemaphore (= sound-concept bearer)

suggests both the character's meaning and its pronunciation. For instance, 昧

combines the signific 日 sun and the phononoemaphore 未, which was originally a

tree with a diminutive, curved, and dimly visible branch on top. In 昧, 未 suggests

“dim (visiblity).” The combination of elements originally indicated “poor sunlight,

resulting in dim visibility.” Current meanings of this character include “dark” and

“conceal.”

(Note: Among Sinologists, the notion that one element in a compound character

suggests both meaning and pronunciation is heretical. I consider it cutting edge, or

avant-garde. In any event, we know that today's heresy has a way of becoming the

next generation's orthodoxy.)

Returning to the point of contrast with respect to Unger and Pullum, what is

ideographic about 昧 is that the idea/concept “dim (on account of being diminutive)”

is conveyed by the element 未. 未 functions the same way in other compound

characters such as 妹 (younger sister, a diminutive member of the family), 味 (taste,

in the sense of minutely scrutinizing the taste of food), and 魅 (enchantment, in the

sense of being enchanted by a dimly visible figure).

A neologism should make the point clear. Compound characters such as 昧, 妹, 味

and 魅 (which make up 90% of all characters) are phononoemagraphs: They convey

sounds (phono-) and ideas (-noema-) in writing (-graphs).

Circling back to Pullum's example of 跑, the element at left (the signific) indicates a

leg or foot. The element at right (the phononoemaphore) originally depicted a fetus

encompassed in a placenta/the womb. In the twenty or so compound characters in

which this element serves as the phononoemaphore ( 庖苞疱皰袍鞄髱鮑 etc.) it

suggests “encompass/envelop.” The combination of elements in 跑 would normally

suggest a juxtaposition of feet/legs and some form of envelopment.

This is where the art of interpretation comes into play. Chinese character etymology

requires that we examine the earliest forms of the characters (dating back more than

3,000 years), determine whether graphic changes have been introduced along the

way, compare the meanings and usages of homonymic terms and so on.

By doing so, we can often determine the etymological development of the characters

with confidence. Then again, for certain characters, there are multiple explanations of

roughly equal likelihood. There are also a small number of characters whose forms

and meanings require further study or even await new archeological evidence before

they can be understood properly.

As it happens, 跑 numbers among the challenging characters. It is not attested in the

oracle bone, bronze inscription or other early forms of the characters. If we

understand the phononoemaphore to be an abbreviated form of another compound

character with the same phononoemaphore (a common phenomenon), and if that

character was 鞄 (leather bag), 跑 may have been devised to convey the sense of

running feet enveloped in leather footwear. If the character was 苞 (originally, a husk

used as wrapping material), then it may have been that the footwear was of straw or

other plant matter. Alternately, the idea may have been that of feet enveloped in (=

kicking up) soft earth in running. It could also be that 跑 was devised as a variant of a

completely separate character, such as 踣, which originally indicated the idea of

stumbling (in running) and falling prone.

In short, 跑 falls into the minor category of characters requiring more complete

evidence. Fortunately, the great majority of characters are much easier to grasp.

Recalling that the phononoemaphore in question indicates “encompass/envelop,” let's

look at the original senses of the other compound characters noted above. (Present

meanings are occasionally the result of extension from the original sense.)

庖 (Signific: 广 building) → kitchen (located deep within a building compound)

苞 (Signific: 艸 grass/plant) → husk used as wrapping material

疱 (Signific: 疒 illness) → skin disease characterized by pimple-like growths

皰 (Signific: 皮 skin/hide) → pimple (← protrusion enveloped by skin)

袍 (Signific: 衣 clothing) → padded/lined garment that envelops the body

鞄 (Signific: 革 leather) → leather bag in which objects are wrapped

髱 (Signific: 髟 hair) → coiled bun/knot of hair

鮑 (Signific: 魚 fish) → abalone (← sea creature enveloped in a shell)

Etymological and interpretive studies of the Chinese characters represent fascinating

areas of inquiry. Beyond that, they hold the promise of contributing greatly to the

creation of effective educational materials for upcoming generations of students.

For that very reason, jejune and specious treatments of Chinese characters only

marginalize productive approaches to character studies. Let us bid the little green

men adieu.