The debate between western sinologists over the origin of Chinese characters reflects the orientalism of the past, and the present. Oh, and Merry Christmas.
That Yan Lianke is not an internationally recognized literary giant is a travesty. He runs the table...from magical realism to tender love stories. "Serve The People" may be one of the most tenderly beautiful "love" stories imaginable. It's a surprise, all the way through.
I did hear about Yan once from a scholar at an obscure conference, but never got around to exploring because I couldn't find translations and my Chinese reading is very slow
Wishing I had downloaded the book, but Gutenberg Project had a collection of old British Diplomatic writings from early 1700s and in one article the author made a note that struck home with me as Chemical Engineer, with my MS from Taiwan National. He felt that written Chinese was superior for the sciences, noting how the 部首 gave relationship information that was lacking from English or Latin terms of the time, and was trying to place why practice under the late Ming/Early Qing had stifled the sciences. I'm not going to explore that here, but just want to mention we only caught up in English with IPC nomenclature for chemistry in the early 20th Century, and there are still certain areas where Chinese still surpasses English in labeling Chemistry.
I'm showing my age here, but sometimes it takes days, weeks or months for an itch in the brain to finally disgorge the cause. I finally remembered this and it's on my basement bookshelf. The shame.... ;-)
SCIENCE IN TRADITIONAL CHINA: A Comparative Perspective.
By Joseph Needham.
JOSEPH NEEDHAM’S immense work, ”Science and Civilization in China,” which will probably total some 20 separate volumes when completed, * is the most ambitious undertaking in Chinese studies during this century. Ranging across the fields of chemistry and mathematics, navigation and medicine, botany and mechanics among many others, the work covers each scientific discipline from the earliest periods of Chinese history up until the middle of the 17th century, when China joined in the general dialogue of world science.
So huge is the work, and so complex and varied the topics, that few except specialists can have read through all that has appeared to date….
Rudolf Flesch, who's grammatical tools were the licensed algorithm behind the early "grammar checkers" in Microsoft Words when MS Office was primarily an off-line tool, thought written Chinese was the cat's miao. He proposed that English and other European languages would evolve toward Chinese grammar, if not the use of pictograms(edit: IMNHO, X/Twitter and texting has accelerated this phenomena). His best seller was "How to write, speak, and think more effectively; Your complete Course in the Art of Communication", published with Harper and Row in 1946. Chapter one is titled: "Let's start with Chinese". (edit: IMNHO, X/Twitter has accelerated this phenomena)
I've written about this before, but can't recall where/where. I hope I'm not repeating the gist of a comment on one of your earlier posts.
I've never heard of Flesch, sounds really fascinating! and it's true, the use of emojis and memes really show that humans can communicate just as naturally and effectively with pictures as with words. If anything, pictures and videos help us understand common experiences shared more easily, where language often can be misinterpreted. If only European grammar was as simple as Chinese!
I really loved this post! I forgot about the Boodberg-Creel debate for a bit (ignorance is bliss, I guess?) but this refresher was great, because a western U.S. American scholar recently asked my opinion of this matter and I was struggling to explain these concepts, because I am not an expert on this topic.
I studied 北京 Chinese from ages thirteen through eighteen. I don't know much about Chinese linguistic anthropology, but I have a vague familiarity that in Indo-European languages, writing systems evolved first from accounting systems.
Reading this post made me think about tallies in clay tablets. It made me ask myself: If someone in the past didn't have words for tallies, how would they speak it? Why would anyone even need to speak a tally, at first, if they began recording ledgers to track trade of simple things such as grains, livestock, and objects like pottery?
I'm curious to read some of Ming Dong Gu and Li Zehou's work sometime, as I'd like to learn more about the linguistic anthropology of Chinese, but my immediate, ignorant, purely intuitive hypothesis is that it would make sense for radicals to develop from tallies, to differentiate between different types of things being traded and recorded in ledger. Once characters reach a certain complexity, maybe spoken language could develop to facilitate conversation regarding ledgers for the sake of convenience and, from there, writing could further develop to communicate more complex ideas? I don't think such a hypothesis implies that spoken language couldn't have existed before written language, but it makes sense to me that spoken language would become shaped by writing as soon as written language was developed. Again, that is pure ignorant, intuitive hypothesis, so I'm eager to dive deeper into actual study of erudite Chinese opinion regarding these topics, but the fact that this could even become a debate in academic journals of "sinology" is pretty baffling to me, too, when you consider that 一，二，三 are some of the first words one learns in Chinese and some of the simplest characters.
One frustrating aspect of orientalism I've encountered as a Chinese as a second language student is how often English speakers ask me "why" I studied Chinese; a question I've never encountered in the study of other languages and have never really had an answer to. I've just found it fun and motivating, I guess, but people often try to press me for a more interesting answer.
Others' with orientalist attitudes sometimes treat any sort of vague Chinese-ness with suspicion. It's annoying to enter accidental long-winded debates with people over simple questions like "Do you speak a second language?" "What are you reading?" or "What TV shows are you watching?" (I sometimes watch C-Dramas from both the mainland and Taiwan for some artificial language immersion)
Claims of propaganda are also very difficult for me to parse in the United States. Many people here seem, to me, very invested in reproducing cold-war era paranoia. Nationalistic propaganda is very common in the United States, as I'm sure it is in China too. It's easier for me to deduce these complexities within U.S. media than within Chinese media, because I'm just less familiar with nonfiction and journalistic Chinese media, so I really appreciate your suggestions!
Another frustrating thing I've encountered is how English speakers consider 汉子 less developed due to visual complexity, while other aspects of Chinese, such as syntax and grammar, actually felt much more intuitive, simple, and "developed" than their counterparts in Western European languages, to me, as a Chinese as a second language student. I try to combat this ignorance when I encounter it by explaining that it can also be difficult for Chinese students to learn English as a second language, because difference in language goes both ways.
On the topic of western "sinologists" reducing common patterns in China to absolute truth, I think this comes from both Orientalism and, to a much lesser degree, properties of Western European linguistics. In English, I find it much more difficult and time consuming to phrase concepts in terms of general patterns. This is also pure anecdote, but I find English very conducive to statements of absolute truth and prescriptive modes of thought. I haven't looked at any charts of their respective prevalence, but I've noticed that words conveying nuance such as 平常 and 常常 feel much more common and acceptable in daily speech in Chinese than their counterparts in English. Perhaps that is one reason why I've enjoyed studying Chinese!
Excellent article, as always! Thank you for sharing
I think your instinct about writing being used as as sort of notation system first and then as representative of language second is a good one, and also what most people probably suspect. I think it's very common with the development of 'systems of knowledge', academia etc to start dismissing instincts and long held belief. It's much more common in medicine, but happens in probably every field, particularly where there's opportunity to dismiss native knowledge and instead project 'superior' systemic thinking on top.
"This is also pure anecdote, but I find English very conducive to statements of absolute truth and prescriptive modes of thought. I haven't looked at any charts of their respective prevalence, but I've noticed that words conveying nuance such as 平常 and 常常 feel much more common and acceptable in daily speech in Chinese than their counterparts in English." -- this is a good example I think. English can be unnecessarily complicated in some places, and we have lots of synonyms where China has fewer but more smaller, distinguishing words that are used in specific contexts. People often complain that translations into English are too clunky, but it's really more because the languages do not express themselves in the same way. I'm not a linguist (and my Chinese has never been that good), but I always found that when I spoke I didn't try to translate what I was trying to say, but rather express what I knew the other person would understand.
The 'why' question is very real! I used to get that all the time, now when people ask I just say I don't really remember lol. I think a lot of people just ask out of curiosity, because it's not something they would think to do themselves. Studying something like French or Italian as a European makes more sense because it's more familiar I suppose. I think propaganda is prevalent in every culture, especially imperialist cultures that are battling for dominance in a global stage. China is just a blatant as the US:if I remember, you can't make a war film in the US without the approval of the military or something, and in China nothing gets made without explicit approval of the party-state! But I don't think that should take away from one's enjoyment, I've always felt that you shouldn't get any sort of understanding of any subject from TV, unless you're watching housewives argue on reality TV!
Also, thanks for this great reply, I had to type my response in a separate note before posting. Merry Christmas!
I'd put this post at the top of my list as the place to start. I like Molly too. Books...China Mirage by Bradley, and read a little Yu Hua and Yan Lianke. (American living in Wuhan.) oh...and Pekingnology...lots of boring policy papers revealing mountains of information between the lines.
I think Chinese seems/is primitive because it seems/is a poorly-evolved form of hieroglyphics which was left behind for the alphabet in the West. It does seem that the modern Mandarin has been crushed into the characters rather than the other way around, and the resulting confusion of a spoken language that is "high-context" and not easily understood as Indo-European languages. The legacy of Hanzi is centuries of illiteracy for most of the population, and now a poorly integrated writing-speaking system which takes Chinese kids twice as long to learn as it takes for their Western counterparts to learn their own languages.
I like Pekingology too, I love anything boring haha. Will have to check out the books, thanks for the recommendations!
That Yan Lianke is not an internationally recognized literary giant is a travesty. He runs the table...from magical realism to tender love stories. "Serve The People" may be one of the most tenderly beautiful "love" stories imaginable. It's a surprise, all the way through.
Of course, he's banned here...
I did hear about Yan once from a scholar at an obscure conference, but never got around to exploring because I couldn't find translations and my Chinese reading is very slow
Some of his stuff is on Kindle. I can only read the translations...they're out there.
Wishing I had downloaded the book, but Gutenberg Project had a collection of old British Diplomatic writings from early 1700s and in one article the author made a note that struck home with me as Chemical Engineer, with my MS from Taiwan National. He felt that written Chinese was superior for the sciences, noting how the 部首 gave relationship information that was lacking from English or Latin terms of the time, and was trying to place why practice under the late Ming/Early Qing had stifled the sciences. I'm not going to explore that here, but just want to mention we only caught up in English with IPC nomenclature for chemistry in the early 20th Century, and there are still certain areas where Chinese still surpasses English in labeling Chemistry.
I'm showing my age here, but sometimes it takes days, weeks or months for an itch in the brain to finally disgorge the cause. I finally remembered this and it's on my basement bookshelf. The shame.... ;-)
SCIENCE IN TRADITIONAL CHINA: A Comparative Perspective.
By Joseph Needham.
JOSEPH NEEDHAM’S immense work, ”Science and Civilization in China,” which will probably total some 20 separate volumes when completed, * is the most ambitious undertaking in Chinese studies during this century. Ranging across the fields of chemistry and mathematics, navigation and medicine, botany and mechanics among many others, the work covers each scientific discipline from the earliest periods of Chinese history up until the middle of the 17th century, when China joined in the general dialogue of world science.
So huge is the work, and so complex and varied the topics, that few except specialists can have read through all that has appeared to date….
* Twenty-seven volumes (1954-2008)
I'm familiar! Unfortunately I had to read at least part of this during my studies. It was... intense 😅
Rudolf Flesch, who's grammatical tools were the licensed algorithm behind the early "grammar checkers" in Microsoft Words when MS Office was primarily an off-line tool, thought written Chinese was the cat's miao. He proposed that English and other European languages would evolve toward Chinese grammar, if not the use of pictograms(edit: IMNHO, X/Twitter and texting has accelerated this phenomena). His best seller was "How to write, speak, and think more effectively; Your complete Course in the Art of Communication", published with Harper and Row in 1946. Chapter one is titled: "Let's start with Chinese". (edit: IMNHO, X/Twitter has accelerated this phenomena)
I've written about this before, but can't recall where/where. I hope I'm not repeating the gist of a comment on one of your earlier posts.
I've never heard of Flesch, sounds really fascinating! and it's true, the use of emojis and memes really show that humans can communicate just as naturally and effectively with pictures as with words. If anything, pictures and videos help us understand common experiences shared more easily, where language often can be misinterpreted. If only European grammar was as simple as Chinese!
Bit of serendipity to have discussed Flesch not long before this:
https://x.com/Kathleen_Tyson_/status/1883492675787092330?mx=2
I really loved this post! I forgot about the Boodberg-Creel debate for a bit (ignorance is bliss, I guess?) but this refresher was great, because a western U.S. American scholar recently asked my opinion of this matter and I was struggling to explain these concepts, because I am not an expert on this topic.
I studied 北京 Chinese from ages thirteen through eighteen. I don't know much about Chinese linguistic anthropology, but I have a vague familiarity that in Indo-European languages, writing systems evolved first from accounting systems.
Reading this post made me think about tallies in clay tablets. It made me ask myself: If someone in the past didn't have words for tallies, how would they speak it? Why would anyone even need to speak a tally, at first, if they began recording ledgers to track trade of simple things such as grains, livestock, and objects like pottery?
I'm curious to read some of Ming Dong Gu and Li Zehou's work sometime, as I'd like to learn more about the linguistic anthropology of Chinese, but my immediate, ignorant, purely intuitive hypothesis is that it would make sense for radicals to develop from tallies, to differentiate between different types of things being traded and recorded in ledger. Once characters reach a certain complexity, maybe spoken language could develop to facilitate conversation regarding ledgers for the sake of convenience and, from there, writing could further develop to communicate more complex ideas? I don't think such a hypothesis implies that spoken language couldn't have existed before written language, but it makes sense to me that spoken language would become shaped by writing as soon as written language was developed. Again, that is pure ignorant, intuitive hypothesis, so I'm eager to dive deeper into actual study of erudite Chinese opinion regarding these topics, but the fact that this could even become a debate in academic journals of "sinology" is pretty baffling to me, too, when you consider that 一，二，三 are some of the first words one learns in Chinese and some of the simplest characters.
One frustrating aspect of orientalism I've encountered as a Chinese as a second language student is how often English speakers ask me "why" I studied Chinese; a question I've never encountered in the study of other languages and have never really had an answer to. I've just found it fun and motivating, I guess, but people often try to press me for a more interesting answer.
Others' with orientalist attitudes sometimes treat any sort of vague Chinese-ness with suspicion. It's annoying to enter accidental long-winded debates with people over simple questions like "Do you speak a second language?" "What are you reading?" or "What TV shows are you watching?" (I sometimes watch C-Dramas from both the mainland and Taiwan for some artificial language immersion)
Claims of propaganda are also very difficult for me to parse in the United States. Many people here seem, to me, very invested in reproducing cold-war era paranoia. Nationalistic propaganda is very common in the United States, as I'm sure it is in China too. It's easier for me to deduce these complexities within U.S. media than within Chinese media, because I'm just less familiar with nonfiction and journalistic Chinese media, so I really appreciate your suggestions!
Another frustrating thing I've encountered is how English speakers consider 汉子 less developed due to visual complexity, while other aspects of Chinese, such as syntax and grammar, actually felt much more intuitive, simple, and "developed" than their counterparts in Western European languages, to me, as a Chinese as a second language student. I try to combat this ignorance when I encounter it by explaining that it can also be difficult for Chinese students to learn English as a second language, because difference in language goes both ways.
On the topic of western "sinologists" reducing common patterns in China to absolute truth, I think this comes from both Orientalism and, to a much lesser degree, properties of Western European linguistics. In English, I find it much more difficult and time consuming to phrase concepts in terms of general patterns. This is also pure anecdote, but I find English very conducive to statements of absolute truth and prescriptive modes of thought. I haven't looked at any charts of their respective prevalence, but I've noticed that words conveying nuance such as 平常 and 常常 feel much more common and acceptable in daily speech in Chinese than their counterparts in English. Perhaps that is one reason why I've enjoyed studying Chinese!
Excellent article, as always! Thank you for sharing
I think your instinct about writing being used as as sort of notation system first and then as representative of language second is a good one, and also what most people probably suspect. I think it's very common with the development of 'systems of knowledge', academia etc to start dismissing instincts and long held belief. It's much more common in medicine, but happens in probably every field, particularly where there's opportunity to dismiss native knowledge and instead project 'superior' systemic thinking on top.
"This is also pure anecdote, but I find English very conducive to statements of absolute truth and prescriptive modes of thought. I haven't looked at any charts of their respective prevalence, but I've noticed that words conveying nuance such as 平常 and 常常 feel much more common and acceptable in daily speech in Chinese than their counterparts in English." -- this is a good example I think. English can be unnecessarily complicated in some places, and we have lots of synonyms where China has fewer but more smaller, distinguishing words that are used in specific contexts. People often complain that translations into English are too clunky, but it's really more because the languages do not express themselves in the same way. I'm not a linguist (and my Chinese has never been that good), but I always found that when I spoke I didn't try to translate what I was trying to say, but rather express what I knew the other person would understand.
The 'why' question is very real! I used to get that all the time, now when people ask I just say I don't really remember lol. I think a lot of people just ask out of curiosity, because it's not something they would think to do themselves. Studying something like French or Italian as a European makes more sense because it's more familiar I suppose. I think propaganda is prevalent in every culture, especially imperialist cultures that are battling for dominance in a global stage. China is just a blatant as the US:if I remember, you can't make a war film in the US without the approval of the military or something, and in China nothing gets made without explicit approval of the party-state! But I don't think that should take away from one's enjoyment, I've always felt that you shouldn't get any sort of understanding of any subject from TV, unless you're watching housewives argue on reality TV!
Also, thanks for this great reply, I had to type my response in a separate note before posting. Merry Christmas!
I'd put this post at the top of my list as the place to start. I like Molly too. Books...China Mirage by Bradley, and read a little Yu Hua and Yan Lianke. (American living in Wuhan.) oh...and Pekingnology...lots of boring policy papers revealing mountains of information between the lines.
I think Chinese seems/is primitive because it seems/is a poorly-evolved form of hieroglyphics which was left behind for the alphabet in the West. It does seem that the modern Mandarin has been crushed into the characters rather than the other way around, and the resulting confusion of a spoken language that is "high-context" and not easily understood as Indo-European languages. The legacy of Hanzi is centuries of illiteracy for most of the population, and now a poorly integrated writing-speaking system which takes Chinese kids twice as long to learn as it takes for their Western counterparts to learn their own languages.