Ideographic Myth: Logical Weaknesses in John DeFrancis' Critique

Keywords: Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, Ideographic Myth,

John DeFrancis, Lawrence J. Howell, Victor Mair, logical fallacies

Victor Mair and other proponents of the Critique of the Ideographic Myth claim that

John DeFrancis “debunked” the myth in his 1984 book “The Chinese Language: Fact

and Fantasy.” Here, I propose to consider the accuracy of that claim.

The relevant chapter of “The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy” is entitled “The

Ideographic Myth.” In the second paragraph, DeFrancis writes, “There never has

been, and never can be, such a thing as an ideographic system of writing.” From the

very outset we observe that DeFrancis is tackling the question of ideography from a

universal perspective. This accounts for why, despite the purported subject of the

chapter and book, non-Sinitic writing systems (Egyptian hieroglyphics; Sumerian and

Accadian cuneiforms) and the subject of writing in general are treated at length.

After subtracting information extraneous to Chinese and/or the characters, we are left

with 1) an historical sketch outlining the origin of the ideographic myth, 2) an

example of using a pictograph to represent sound, 3) an account of the ideographic-

phonetic debate (halted in 1940) between Herrlee Creel and Peter Boodberg, 4)

quotations from 19th century Sinologists Peter S. Du Ponceau and Joseph-Marie

Callery, and 5) a discussion of character nomenclature. (The disjointed order of

presentation is that of DeFrancis.)

As evident from the outline, point 2) is the only concrete argument DeFrancis offers

by way of countering the ideographic myth (which he defines as the “... concept of

Chinese writings as a means of conveying ideas without regard to speech”). As

contributions go, it isn't much. Let's see why.

DeFrancis gives but a single example, noting how a character meaning “wheat”

acquired the meaning of a homonymic term meaning “come.” This borrowing process

in ancient times is a common, yet statistically minor, practice among the Chinese

characters: We are talking about scores of examples among thousands of characters

unaffected by borrowing. Despite this, DeFrancis proceeds as though he has

somehow demonstrated that borrowing is normative for the characters, not

exceptional. This is a classic example of the logical fallacy of faulty generalization,

here aggravated by reliance on suppressed evidence (those pesky other thousands of

characters counter-indicating the conclusion DeFrancis wishes to reach).

In fact, DeFrancis' argumentation is shot through with logical fallacies. 1) Faulty

generalization. 2) Suppressed evidence. 3) The appeal to authority, the authorities in

this case being Du Ponceau, Callery and Boodberg. 4) Circular reasoning. As we

have seen, DeFrancis puts the cart before the horse by asserting at the outset that no

writing system is ideographic, indicating he has already arrived at his conclusion that

Chinese characters are not ideographic. If at some point DeFrancis offered solid

evidence to support his claim we could dismiss the inversion as a stylistic quirk, but

such evidence being absent, the reasoning is patently circular. 5) The false dilemma,

seen in positing that Chinese characters must of necessity be either phonetic or

ideographic.

To reiterate, Victor Mair would have us believe that, in “The Chinese Language: Fact

and Fantasy,” John DeFrancis “debunked” the ideographic myth. Careful inspection

suggests that DeFrancis accomplished nothing of the sort.

The notion of DeFrancis debunking the ideographic myth has, in the decades since

his book was published, taken on a curious life of its own; we can speak of a myth

within a myth. This mythologizing process itself merits consideration.

Lawrence J. Howell

7 April 2012

Version of a post originally uploaded to the Kanji Networks Blog