Ideogram: Chinese Characters and the Myth of Disembodied Meaning

by J. Marshall Unger (Author)

6 ratings

ISBN-13: 978-0824826567

ISBN-10: 0824826566

Why is ISBN important?

Paperback

$17.36 - $25.00

Other Sellers

from

Other Sellers

See all 2 versions

In this latest book, J. Marshall Unger exposes the historical, scientific, cultural, and practical flaws accompanying the widespread belief that Chinese characters embody pure, language-less meaning. Whether one is interested in Chinese characters from the standpoint of language, literature, semiotics, psychology, history, cultural studies, or computers, Ideogram contains new ideas and insights that are sure to challenge preconceptions and provoke thought.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

J. Marshall Unger is professor of Japanese and chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at Ohio State University.

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Univ of Hawaii Pr (November 1, 2003)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 224 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0824826566
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0824826567
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.03 pounds
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.5 x 9 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #13,761,000 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #3,597 in Semantics (Books)
- #25,975 in Linguistics (Books)
- #49,280 in Linguistics Reference

Customer Reviews:
6 ratings

Customer reviews

5 star		25%
4 star 0% (0%)		0%
3 star 0% (0%)		0%
2 star 0% (0%)		0%
1 star		75%

How are ratings calculated?

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

S Hudson

the book attacks a straw man Platonic conception of ideograms

Reviewed in the United States on August 30, 2012

Verified Purchase

Warning: don't buy this book unless you're interested in academic blather. You'll just be wasting your money and time. The main reason I dislike this book is that with a great deal of self-righteous acrimony, it attacks a straw man conception of ideograms as a means of conveying "disembodied" Platonic ideas independently of language. I don't believe that anybody to speak of takes this view. Plato's scheme of there being a realm of ideas -- with ideal forms that exist in a kind of heavenly true reality that individual things in this world only participate in and are shadows of (thus the metaphor of the cave) - is not taken seriously in the modern world. So I think Unger's argument is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous crap. Chinese characters are what they are, quite independently of his blather. No doubt he's right about some specifics - that many of them have a phonological element along with a significance element, and thus don't represent or symbolize ideas in a direct way. But some do depict ideas fairly directly. (That they would do so completely independently of words is an asinine staw man idea.) The crux of his argument seems to be that they are not special, that they don't do anything all that different from alphabetically written words. From experience, I beg to differ: something special and different comes into play with graphic depiction and combinations of elements. A special mental light and power is potentiated. Ideograms -- graphic depictions of not "disembodied," but word-based ideas - are not a myth, but exist, and have, I believe, many of the properties and potentials that he denies. I know this because I have spent thousands of fun hours creatively constructing an "ideographic" system for English, and it works!

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

S Hudson

this book attacks a straw man platonic conception of ideograms

Reviewed in the United States on October 28, 2013

Verified Purchase

.
Warning: don't buy this book unless you're interested in academic blather. You'll just be wasting your money and time. The main reason I dislike this book is that with a great deal of self-righteous acrimony, it attacks a straw man conception of ideograms as a means of conveying "disembodied" Platonic ideas independently of language. I don't believe that anybody to speak of takes this view. Plato's scheme of there being a realm of ideas -- with ideal forms that exist in a kind of heavenly true reality that individual things in this world only participate in and are shadows of (thus the metaphor of the cave) - is not taken seriously in the modern world. So I think Unger's argument is intellectually dishonest, disingenuous crap. Chinese characters are what they are, quite independently of his blather. No doubt he's right about some specifics - that many of them have a phonological element along with a significance element, and thus don't represent or symbolize ideas in a direct way. But some do depict ideas fairly directly. (That they would do so completely independently of words is an asinine staw man idea.) The crux of his argument seems to be that they are not special, that they don't do anything all that different from alphabetically written words. From experience, I beg to differ: something special and different comes into play with graphic depiction and combinations of elements. A special mental light and power is potentiated. Ideograms -- graphic depictions of not "disembodied," but word-based ideas - are not a myth, but exist, and have, I believe, many of the properties and potentials that he denies. I know this because I have spent thousands of fun hours creatively constructing an "ideographic" system for English, and it works! neoideograms.wordpress.com

6 people found this helpful

Helpful

Amazon Customer

Unger is the top living expert in the field

Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2017

This book is an attempt to make the academic literature on the nature of Chinese characters more accessible to the general reader. Unger is the top living expert in the field, assuming the mantle from John DeFrancis (Unger specializes in Japanese where DeFrancis worked with Chinese). The generally accepted theory of writing is based largely on DeFrancis and Unger's work. I read this book while researching script reform in Asia for a writing sample for graduate school.

Anyone reading this book in good faith will find that Unger's argument does not contradict their language-learning experience nor is it disrespectful of Chinese or Japanese culture. Those who insist that his conclusions are wrong because their anecdotal experience seems to contradict them or because as a caucasian he is apparently unqualified to comment (he is a professor emeritus of Japanese at OSU--which has a Japanese language program as good if not better than Columbia/Harvard), are the linguistics equivalents of climate-change deniers. The more general philosophical/ontological disagreement about platonic forms and the nature of existence is more valid, but even you disagree the book is certainly worth reading.

My main criticism of the book is that it is nowhere near as accessible as Unger intended (and this might explain the confusion in some of the other comments). I got confused halfway through and had to reread a chapter to come to the understanding that Unger was arguing the opposite of what I had originally thought. Unger, perhaps unknowingly, presupposes a familiarity with linguistics, Japanese writing, and relevant philosophical concepts that might prove daunting for the general reader. That said, Unger does sprinkle in some fun and interesting topics that make reading more enjoyable, like the Monty Hall problem or Leibniz' obsession with universal characters.

8 people found this helpful

Helpful

Steve Turrentine

Good Myth Debunking

Reviewed in the United States on May 4, 2009

This is an excellent book, highly recommended. The 2 reviews immediately above should be ignored. They probably haven't even read the book but regardless, it's obvious that neither one of them knows what he's talking about. Of the 3 prior reviews, only the first one is valid. I have an M.A. & Ph.D. in Japanese linguistics & I can definitely say that Unger knows what he's talking about. It's not the easiest book in the world to read but it's most definitely worth reading. The myth of the Chinese character as ideogram has needed debunking for many years & this book does an outstanding job of it.

13 people found this helpful

Helpful