One,
Summary of
"PreBabel Chapter Four" – A Linguistic Catastrophe and Its Great
Salvation
This chapter
explores the historical and scholarly perspectives on the Chinese character
system, its perceived flaws, and the eventual shift in attitudes toward its
value and structure.
Key Points
- Attributes of a Perfect Language:
Gong argues that a perfect language should: - Form unlimited lexicons from a
finite set of tokens.
- Allow pronunciation of every word
from its written form.
- Allow meaning of every word to be
read from its written form.
English scores highly on these attributes, while traditional Chinese was historically seen as lacking. - Criticism of Chinese Characters:
Influential scholars, both Chinese and Western, historically viewed the Chinese character system as denotative, lacking logical universals, and not scientific. This led to movements in the early 20th century to abolish Chinese characters in favor of Romanization, with simplification as an interim step. - Historical Attempts to Reform:
The May Fourth Movement and subsequent decades saw strong criticism and attempts to replace Chinese characters, with prominent figures like Lu Xun and Qian Xuantong advocating for radical change. - Western Sinologists' Views:
Scholars such as Dr. F.S.C. Northrop, Joseph Needham, and John DeFrancis debated whether Chinese characters are ideographic, pictographic, or phonological. There was disagreement and misunderstanding about the system's logic and structure. - Contemporary Chinese Philologists:
In recent years, some Chinese academics have labeled efforts to scientifically analyze Chinese characters as pseudoscience, and official institutions have denounced claims of its superiority over alphabetic systems. - Shift in Perspective and "Salvation":
The publication of works such as "Chinese Word Roots and Grammar" and "Chinese Etymology" in the early 2000s {by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong} led to a reevaluation. These works argue that Chinese characters are a root-based axiomatic system, allowing for efficient learning and logical structure. This new understanding influenced policy reversals, with China abandoning Romanization efforts and reaffirming the value of traditional characters. - Conclusion:
The chapter concludes that the Chinese character system, once widely criticized, is now recognized as a "perfect language" due to its root-based structure and logical attributes. Gong claims to have played a major role in this transformation, which is described as a victory for Chinese culture and humanity.
Criticisms
of Chinese Characters
The article
presents several major criticisms of the Chinese character system, voiced by
both Chinese and Western scholars over the past century:
1. Lack of
Logical Structure
- Many experts argued that Chinese characters are
denotative and solitary, lacking logical universals and systematic
connections between symbols. Unlike alphabetic systems, where words are
formed by combining a small set of letters, Chinese characters were seen
as isolated symbols without a logical whole-part relationship.
2. Difficulty
in Learning and Teaching
- The complexity and sheer number of unique characters
made the system difficult to learn, contributing to high illiteracy rates
in China. This led to movements advocating for the abolition of Chinese
characters and their replacement with Romanization (Latin alphabet)
systems, especially during the May Fourth Movement in the 1920s.
3. Perceived
as Pseudoscience
- Contemporary Chinese philologists and official
institutions have labeled attempts to scientifically analyze or justify
the superiority of Chinese characters as pseudoscience. Arguments that
Chinese characters are easier to learn or improve intelligence have been
widely denounced by academics and authorities.
4. Western
Sinologists’ Views
- Western scholars were divided:
- Some saw Chinese characters as
ideographs or pictographs, conveying meaning directly through visual
symbols, but criticized the lack of phonetic and logical structure.
- Others argued that the system is
mainly phonological, but still much harder to learn than alphabetic
languages because each sound is represented by a unique symbol, not a
combination of letters.
5. Historical
Attempts at Reform
- There were significant efforts to reform or replace
the character system, including simplification and promotion of Pinyin
(Romanization). Prominent figures like Lu Xun and Qian Xuantong advocated
for abandoning Chinese characters, believing that retaining them would
hinder China’s progress.
6. Cultural
and Political Criticism
- The character system was blamed for China’s
backwardness and was seen as a barrier to modernization and scientific
advancement. The simplification and Romanization policies were considered
necessary steps to overcome these challenges.
In summary:
Chinese characters were historically criticized for being illogical, difficult
to learn, lacking systematic structure, and impeding literacy and
modernization. These criticisms led to major reform movements and policy
changes throughout the 20th century.
Three,
Views of Some Western Sinologists on Chinese Characters
The chapter provides a detailed account of how Western
sinologists have interpreted and debated the nature of Chinese characters over
the centuries. Their views can be grouped into two main schools of thought:
School One: Chinese Characters as Ideographs
- Key
Figures:
- Gaspar
da Cruz (Portuguese Dominican Friar, 1560s)
- Juan
Gonzales de Mendoza (1600s)
- Matteo
Ricci (Jesuit missionary, 1552–1610)
- J. J.
M. Amiot (1700s)
- Alessandro
Valignani (Jesuit missionary, 1600s)
- Herrlee
Glessner Creel
- Paul
Mulligan Thompson
- Joseph
Needham
- Core
Beliefs:
- Chinese
characters are ideographs—symbols or images that directly convey meaning.
- The
system consists of intricate, unique symbols that represent ideas
visually, not phonetically.
- Ideographs
are seen as an ideal algebra, conveying thoughts by analogy, relation, or
convention, and can be read in any language.
- The
system is not tied to sound and lacks a logical ordering or connection
between symbols.
- This
view led to the conclusion that the Chinese character system is denotative
and solitary, which contributed to the movement to despise and
reform the system in China.
School Two: Chinese Characters as Phonological
(Lexigraphic) System
- Key
Figures:
- Peter
Alexis Boodberg
- Peter
S. DuPonceau
- J. M.
Callery (French sinologist, 1880)
- John
DeFrancis
- J.
Marshall Unger
- Core
Beliefs:
- The
ideographic idea is a myth; Chinese characters do not represent ideas but
words.
- The
writing system is lexigraphic, representing spoken language directly.
- All
writing must represent language elements—words, syllables, or sounds—not
abstract ideas.
- Chinese
is difficult to learn because each phonetic value is represented by a
unique symbol, not a combination of letters.
- This
school argues that the Chinese character system is not ideographic but
phonological, and that ideographic writing cannot exist except for
limited purposes.
Summary of the Debate
- Both
schools agree that the Chinese written language is extremely difficult to
learn, but they differ on the fundamental nature of the system.
- The
ideographic school emphasizes the visual and semantic aspects, while the
phonological school stresses the system’s connection to spoken language
and its complexity.
- These
debates influenced both Western and Chinese attitudes toward the character
system, contributing to reform movements and policy changes in China.
Views of Contemporary Chinese Philologists on Chinese
Characters
The chapter provides a detailed account of how modern
Chinese philologists and academic institutions have evaluated the Chinese
character system, especially in the context of scientific analysis and
educational policy.
1. Pseudoscience Accusations
- A group
of professionals led by 徐德江 formed the Hanzi Research Group to
apply scientific methods to the study of Chinese characters. Their work
was challenged by academics nationwide.
- 伍铁平, a professor at Beijing Normal
University, openly accused their research (徐德江) of
being pseudoscience and labeled them "cheaters."
- The
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (社科院), the highest authority on social
science in China, officially concluded that the Hanzi Research Group’s
work was pseudoscience.
2. Academic Denouncements
- Numerous
articles were published by Chinese academics denouncing the idea that the
Chinese character system is scientific. These denouncements were widely
circulated and discussed in both Chinese and Western academic circles.
- David
Moser and 姚小平 summarized the academic dispute between 徐德江 and 伍铁平, repeatedly denouncing the Chinese
character system as pseudoscience.
3. Arguments Deemed Pseudoscientific
- Claims
that Chinese characters are easier to learn than alphabetic languages,
improve children’s IQ, or that calligraphy proves the superiority of
Chinese characters were all labeled as pseudoscientific by mainstream
academics.
4. Official Position
- The
consensus among top Chinese philologists and institutions (including the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) is that the Chinese character system
is not a scientific or logical system.
- This
view was echoed by prominent Western sinologists, who also regarded the
system as illogical.
5. Educational Challenges
- Reports
from conferences and news articles highlighted the difficulty American
students faced in learning Chinese, with high dropout rates and poor
results despite significant investment. Parents and teachers often blamed
the language itself for these challenges.
6. Policy and Political Statements
- In 2008
and 2009, Chinese government officials, including the Vice Secretary
of the Department of Education, publicly proclaimed the use of simplified
characters as a major political achievement and in accordance with
the law, reinforcing the official stance against traditional characters
and scientific claims about Hanzi.
Summary:
Contemporary Chinese philologists and official institutions have largely
rejected claims that the Chinese character system is scientific or superior to
alphabetic systems. Efforts to promote such views have been labeled as
pseudoscience, and the official stance has focused on simplification and
practical educational policy rather than theoretical or scientific
justification.
Five,
The Story of "Prevented a Detrimental Disaster of
Mankind"
This chapter details how Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong claims
to have played a pivotal role in reversing the historical movement to abolish
the Chinese character system—a movement that, if successful, would have been
considered a "detrimental disaster" for humanity.
Background: The Threat to Chinese Characters
- Early
20th Century:
Chinese intellectuals and reformers, frustrated by high illiteracy and modernization challenges, blamed the complexity of Chinese characters. The May Fourth Movement (1919) popularized the slogan: “漢字不廢，中國必亡” (“If Chinese characters are not abolished, China will surely perish”). - Decades
of Reform:
The PRC simplified Chinese characters in the 1950s as an interim step toward full Romanization. By 2006, a law banned traditional characters, and the government planned to complete Romanization by 2016, replacing Chinese characters with Pinyin.
Gong’s Intervention: Scholarly Publications
Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong published a series of
influential books that challenged the prevailing view of Chinese characters as
illogical and unscientific:
- Chinese
Word Roots and Grammar (2006)
https://search.worldcat.org/title/73425595 - Chinese
Etymology (2008)
https://search.worldcat.org/title/318075862 - Linguistics
Manifesto — Universal Language & the Super Unified Linguistic Theory
(2010)
https://search.worldcat.org/title/688487196
- The
Great Vindications (2013)
https://search.worldcat.org/title/852149215
These works argued that the Chinese character system is
not only logical but also a root-based axiomatic system. Gong demonstrated that
with knowledge of 220 root words and 300 sound modules, one could master all
60,000 Chinese characters, making the system efficient and learnable.
Impact and Reversal of Policy
- Academic
Recognition:
Gong’s books received endorsements from university presidents and academic societies in China, who praised the novelty and value of his research. - Policy
Shift:
By 2009, the Chinese government began reconsidering its Romanization policy. In September 2017, a press release from Xinhua announced the abandonment of the Romanization effort, reaffirming the primacy of Chinese characters and relegating Pinyin to a supporting role. - Global
Influence:
Gong’s works were collected by top university libraries worldwide, and his arguments influenced both Chinese and international perspectives on the value of the character system.
Conclusion: The "Great Salvation"
Gong frames this reversal as the "great
salvation"—preventing the loss of a unique linguistic heritage and
averting what he calls "the most insane act of humanity." The
chapter concludes that the Chinese character system, once widely criticized, is
now recognized as a perfect language, thanks to Gong’s intervention and
scholarship.
Six,
Here is a
timeline of key events related to the reform and preservation of the Chinese
character system, as described in the chapter:
Timeline of
Key Events
1919–1920s:
The May Fourth Movement
- Chinese intellectuals and reformers blame the Chinese
character system for illiteracy and backwardness.
- Slogan: “漢字不廢，中國必亡” (“If Chinese
characters are not abolished, China will surely perish”).
- Calls for complete abolition and replacement with
Romanization or other phonetic systems.
1930s:
Manifestos and Advocacy
- Prominent scholars (e.g., 魯迅, 郭沫若,
蔡元培,
錢玄同)
advocate for abolishing Chinese characters.
- A manifesto to destroy the character system is signed
by 600 scholars.
1950s–1960s:
Simplification as Interim Measure
- The People’s Republic of China implements the
simplification of Chinese characters (1958) as a step toward full
Romanization.
1980s:
Promotion of Pinyin
- Pinyin (Romanization) is promoted as the foundation
for learning Chinese, furthering the move toward a phonetic system.
April 2006:
Law Banning Traditional Characters
- China issues a law banning the use of traditional
Chinese characters, reinforcing the commitment to simplification and
Romanization.
- The official plan is to complete total Romanization
by 2016.
2006–2010:
Gong’s Publications and Academic Recognition
- Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong publishes influential works:
- Chinese Word Roots and Grammar
(2006)
- Chinese Etymology (2008)
- Linguistics Manifesto (2010)
- These works argue for the logical, root-based
structure of Chinese characters and gain endorsements from academic
leaders.
2008–2010:
Policy Reconsideration
- Chinese government and academic circles begin to
reconsider the Romanization policy.
- News reports and academic letters reflect a shift in
attitude toward the value of traditional characters.
September
2017: Abandonment of Romanization Policy
- Xinhua press release announces that China has
abandoned the Romanization policy.
- Pinyin is reaffirmed as only a tool to assist with
learning Chinese characters, not as a replacement.
- The Chinese character system is restored to its
central role in Chinese language and culture.
This timeline
highlights the dramatic shift from nearly a century of efforts to abolish
Chinese characters to their eventual reaffirmation and preservation, with
Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong’s scholarship playing a pivotal role in the reversal.
Seven,
Here’s how the
policy to abandon traditional Chinese characters and fully Romanize the Chinese
language was reversed after 2006, according to the chapter:
How the
Policy Was Reversed After 2006
1. 2006
Law and Planned Romanization
- In April 2006, China issued a law banning the use of
traditional Chinese characters, reinforcing the commitment to
simplification and the planned total Romanization of the language by 2016.
2. Publication
of Influential Works
- Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong published several books
between 2006 and 2013, including:
- Chinese Word Roots and Grammar (2006)
- Chinese Etymology (2008)
- Linguistics Manifesto (2010)
- The Great Vindications (2013)
- These works argued that the Chinese character system
is a logical, root-based axiomatic system, and demonstrated that it is
efficient and learnable. Gong’s research showed that with knowledge of 220
root words and 300 sound modules, one could master all 60,000 Chinese
characters.
3. Academic
and Institutional Recognition
- Gong’s books received endorsements from university
presidents and academic societies in China, who praised the novelty and
value of his research. Letters from Chinese and international universities
and educational departments acknowledged the significance of his findings.
4. Shift
in Government Attitude
- By 2008, news reports and academic letters reflected
a shift in attitude toward the value of traditional characters. The
Chinese government began reconsidering its Romanization policy, and
debates emerged about restoring traditional characters in education.
5. Abandonment
of Romanization Policy (2017)
- In September 2017, a press release from Xinhua
announced that China had abandoned the Romanization policy. Pinyin was
reaffirmed as only a tool to assist with learning Chinese characters, not
as a replacement. The Chinese character system was restored to its central
role in Chinese language and culture.
6. Global
Impact
- Gong’s works were collected by top university
libraries worldwide, and his arguments influenced both Chinese and
international perspectives on the value of the character system.
Summary:
The reversal of the policy was driven by new scholarly research, widespread
academic recognition, and a growing appreciation for the logical structure and
cultural value of Chinese characters. This led to the abandonment of the
Romanization plan and the reaffirmation of Chinese characters as the foundation
of the language.
