Asia's Orthographic Dilemma (Asian Interactions and Comparisons) [Hardcover]

William C. Hannas (Author), Wm C. Hannas (Author)

Product Details

• Hardcover: 368 pages
• Publisher: University of Hawaii Press (April 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0824818423
• ISBN-13: 978-0824818425
• Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.3 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,463,589 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

37 of 39 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Strong Critique of Chinese Character-based Writing, December 25, 2002

By 

Jeffery Steele (Taipei, Taiwan) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Asia's Orthographic Dilemma (Asian Interactions and Comparisons) (Hardcover)

Traditionally, four major East Asian languages have used Chinese characters for their writing systems: Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, and, of course, Chinese. Wm. C. Hannas knows all of them, and in this book he uses that extensive knowledge to deliver a broadside against the Chinese characters' lack of efficiency as a writing system.

Anyone familiar with John DeFrancis' work on the Chinese language will recognize some of Hannas' arguments (DeFrancis writes the forward for this book and was clearly an inspiration for Hannas' work). But Hannas is more wide-ranging in his scholarship and goes further with his arguments.

The first part of the book introduces the four major languages that have used Chinese characters for their writing systems, introducing them in order of the frequency they presently use the characters. Thus, Chinese -- which is comprised entirely of characters -- is introduced first and Vietnamese -- which no longer uses any characters -- is introduced last. This part describes the history of each languages' writing system and is highly readable.

After the languages have been introduced, the second part of the book critiques the Chinese character-based writing system. This part varies between highly readable sections and some more abstruse sections that deal with linguistic, analytical, and even psychological arguments that require close readings by the layman who doesn't have an expertise or at least a strong interest in those areas. But these arguments are the meat of Hannas' book as he looks at what Chinese characters represent, reading and literacy in Chinese character-based scripts, and even whether those writing systems are really appropriate for East Asian languages as some people have argued.

The third and final part winds down with a look at why reform of the Chinese character-based writing system fails (as Hannas argues it does) as well as what the future is likely to hold for it. One chapter alone is dedicated to the effect computers are having on characters. I found this part the least plausible of the three and also somewhat repetitive as arguments made earlier were restated.

While I agree with most of Hannas' general arguments and found his book both highly interesting and entertaining, I also think he greatly overstates his case. Hannas seems to actually believe that characters are on their way out. The growth in education and wealth, as well as the general social vibrance found in so many of the societies which still use Chinese characters suggests, at the very least, that perhaps inefficiency in a writing system is simply not an important aspect to a well-functioning, modern society -- that whatever impact it has is more negligible than Hannas imagines.

But disagreements over some of its points shouldn't be a reason not to read this outstanding book. Hannas' scholarship, lucid writing, and forceful exposition will give anyone who has experience with any of the East Asian languages that use Chinese characters a wonderful read.

10 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Very Interesting, February 22, 2001

By A Customer

This review is from: Asia's Orthographic Dilemma (Asian Interactions and Comparisons) (Hardcover)

I found this book to be a well written and interesting look at the use of Chinese characters. It uncovers some of the commonly held misconceptions about the use of the characters. It does a very thorough job of examining the differences between them and phonetic alphabetic scripts. The book covers the use of characters in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. The view of Hannas is that the characters are "on their last leg". I have discussed this book with several of my Chinese, Japanese, and Korean friends and they all seem to disagree with Hannas and are not in favor of abolishing the use of the characters. Hannas claims that he is not writing from the point of view of a disgruntled Westerner, but sometimes this is hard to believe. The introduction by John DeFrancis states that Hannas is one of the few people (Western or Asian) to have mastered Chinese (several "dialects")Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. I would highly recommend this book for anyone curious about East Asian languages. As an aside, I'm sure that an Asian could find plenty of things about English that do not make sense and should be changed!

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Informative but disappointing tirade, February 23, 2011

By 

Master Matt (Spokane, WA USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Asia's Orthographic Dilemma (Asian Interactions and Comparisons) (Paperback)

Just to add a view from the other side of the fence--This book is interesting, well-written, and thoroughly researched, but ultimately more of the same tired rant--If those poor benighted Asians would just give up their unwieldy writing system and use an alphabet like us, then they could be creative. The sweeping implication that the people of China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam have no creativity is simply ludicrous and--sorry--racist. Linquistic imperialism at its most shameless.
Now I can't claim to be anywhere near Hannas in expertise on the Asian languages--he does claim to speak 7 of them, after all--but I have been a translator of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean for 25 years, and I have heard this same tired argument again and again. It's simply nonsense. I wonder if Hannas has spent any time in East Asia recently? I have, and I can assure him that the Chinese are doing just fine despite the supposed handicap of their writing system. They just passed the US in number of patent filings, and the Chinese students I have the pleasure of dealing with these days are not only far better-informed than their US counterparts, they are--dare I say it--more creative as well. To anyone who doubts this, I would say--wait about 10 years, and if you still have a job, see who your employers are. And if you want a lack of creativity, and what is even scarier, a total lack of interest in the outside world, look no farther than the US, complete with our wonderful alphabet.
What puzzles me about this book, and the work of the even more brilliant John DeFrancis, the author's mentor, who started ranting about the same thing years ago, is this. Why would someone who is obviously brilliant, and has devoted some three decades to mastering several systems using Chinese characters, be so bitter about these same characters? This book is an exercise in overkill, and the author's loathing for the Chinese writing system shines through on every page. I can't really speculate about the reasons, but it does seem somewhat odd.
To any young people embarking on the study of Chinese, I would like to offer the opposing view--study of the Chinese characters will enrich your life beyond your wildest imagination. Chinese culture itself is a very, very beautiful thing. The Chinese characters are here to stay in China and Japan, and books such as this will have zero effect on that simple reality. I would encourage you to take the positive attitude most people do--start at step one and just keep studying. Perhaps you will find yourself falling in love with the characters, the language, and the people, as I have.