Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:27:33.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting over the Walls of Discourse: “Character Fetishization” in Chinese Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2009

Edward McDonald
Get access

Abstract

Debates on the nature of the Chinese writing system, particularly whether Chinese characters may or may not legitimately be called “ideographs,” continue to bedevil Chinese studies. This paper considers examples of what are referred to as “discourses of character fetishization,” whereby an inordinate status is discursively created for Chinese characters in the interpretation of Chinese language, thought, and culture. The author endeavors to analyze and critique the presuppositions and implications of such discourses, with the aim of defusing the passions that have been aroused by this issue, and showing the way toward a more comprehensive and grounded understanding of the nature of Chinese characters, both as a writing system and in relation to Chinese culture and thought.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , November 2009 , pp. 1189 - 1213
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Ames, Roger T., and Rosemont, Henry Jr. 1999. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. 1605 [1998]. The Advancement of Learning. Renascence Editions: An Online Repository of Works Printed in English Between the Years 1477 and 1799. http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Erbear/ren.htm [accessed July 30, 2009].Google Scholar
Bauer, Robert S. 1988. “Written Cantonese of Hong Kong.” Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 17 (2): 245–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltz, William G. 1994. The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Boodberg, Peter A. 1937. “Some Proleptical Remarks on the Evolution of Archaic Chinese.” Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 2 (3–4): 329–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buruma, Ian, and Margalit, Avishai. 2004. Occidentalism: A Short History of Anti-Westernism. London: Atlantic.Google Scholar
Chow, Rey. 2001. “How (the) Inscrutable Chinese Led to Globalized Theory.” Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America 116 (1): 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe, Michael D. 1992. Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Cook, H. P., trans. 1938. Aristotle: De Interpretatione. London: Loeb Classical Library.Google Scholar
Creel, Herrlee Glessner. 1936. “On the Nature of Chinese Ideography.” T'oung Pao 32:85–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, Herrlee Glessner. 1938. “On the Ideographic Element in Ancient Chinese.” T'oung Pao 34:265–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John. 1984. The Chinese language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John. 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Du Ponceau, Peter S. 1838. A Dissertation on the Nature and Character of the Chinese System of Writing. Vol. 2 of Transactions of the Historical and Literary Committee of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Fenellosa, Ernest, and Pound, Ezra. 1920. The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry. Repr., San Francisco: City Lights, 1936.Google Scholar
Graham, A. C. 1989. “The Relation of Chinese Thought to the Chinese Language.” In Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China, by Graham, A. C., 389–428. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
Hansen, Chad. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Chad. 1993a. “Chinese Ideographs and Western Ideas.” Journal of Asian Studies 52 (2): 373–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Chad. 1993b. “Communications to the Editor: Chad Hansen Replies.” Journal of Asian Studies 52 (4): 954–57.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1987. Reading Saussure: A Critical Commentary on the Cours de linguistique generale. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Hodge, Bob, and Louie, Kam. 1998. The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Honey, David B. 2001. Incense at the Altar: Pioneering Sinologists and the Development of Classical Chinese Philology. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1926. On the Nature and Authenticity of the Tso Chuan. Goteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift 32. Repr., Taipei: Cheng-Wen, 1968.Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A. 1951. “The Monosyllabic Myth.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 71 (3). Repr., Selected Works of George A. Kennedy, ed. Li, Tien-yi, 104–18. New Haven, Conn.: Far Eastern Publications, Yale University, 1964.Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A. 1953. ZH Guide: An Introduction to Sinology. New Haven, Conn.: Sinological Seminar, Yale University.Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A. 1955. “The Butterfly Case (Part I).” Wennti, no. 8. Repr., Selected Works of George A. Kennedy, ed. Li, Tien-yi, 238–322. New Haven, Conn.: Far Eastern Publications, Yale University, 1964.Google Scholar
Liu, James J. Y. 1988. Language—Paradox—Poetics: A Chinese Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lurie, David B. 2006. “Language, Writing and Disciplinarity in the Critique of the ‘Ideographic Myth’: Some Proleptical Remarks.” Language and Communication 26 (3–4): 250–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Edward. 2000. Review of The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons, by Bob Hodge and Kam Louie. Modern Chinese Literature and Culture 12 (1): 209–17.Google Scholar
McDonald, Edward. 2002. “Humanistic Spirit or Scientism? Conflicting Ideologies in Modern Chinese Language Reform.” Histoire, épistémologie, langage 24 (2): 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1931–58. Collected Writings. Ed. Harthorne, Charles, Weiss, Paul, and Burks, Arthur W. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Wade, BaskinNew York: McGraw-Hill, 1957.Google Scholar
Saussy, Haun. 2001. Great Walls of Discourse and Other Adventures in Cultural China. Harvard East Asian Monographs no. 212. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Asia Center.Google Scholar
Thibault, Paul. 1997. Rereading Saussure: The Dynamics of Signs in Social Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Unger J. Marshall, . 1990. “The Very Idea: the Notion of Ideogram in China and Japan.” Monumenta Nipponica 45 (4): 391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger J. Marshall, . 1993. “Communications to the Editor.” Journal of Asian Studies 52 (4): 949–54.Google Scholar
Unger J. Marshall, . 2004. Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Zhan, Xuzuo, and Liangzhi, Zhu. 1995. “Graphology and Culture: How Chinese Characters Verify Beliefs and Ideologies.” Journal of Oriental Studies 33 (1): 76–94.Google Scholar