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

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.

As you can imagine from other reviews, Hannas argue that (a) the Chinese writing system is ineffective and (b) it is an obstacle to genuine scientific creativity. I suspect that (a) is quite uncontroversial but (b) is an unsupported, biased claim. However, my primary complaint is not these points. Rather, I find out that his discussion on Hangul (the Korean writing system) is, sorry, quite ridiculous.

Here are his most problematic claims: (c) "... Hangul, while alphabetic, was like every other writing system in East Asia unable to escape the Sinistic paradigm that accords prominence to syllables and not words." (d) "Replacing Hangul with a Romanized Script would, moreover, solve certain problems associated with the former, such as (e) its non-use internationally; its (f) incompatibility with much foregin, alphabet-based computer software; (g) the relative inefficiency of Hangul computer input and output; and, (h) most important, the syllabic mentality that frustrates genuine writing reform and leaves the Korean language to the sinistic paradigm."

Let me focus on (c). I agree to Hannas' claim that the Chinese writing system is ineffective; for, you don't want to memorize tens of thousands of characters to write anything. However, this is mainly because it is not phonetic. Hannas claims that although phonetic, Hangul is somehow bad because it focuses upon syllables, not phonemes. But why? If there are too many syllables to memorize, then it can be ineffective for the same reason as the Chinese writing system is. But each Hangul syllable is parsed into phonetic characers, selected from only twenty four. Hannas seems to think that the syllabilistic structure itself is somehow intrinsically bad, for which he provides no argument.

His suggestion of replacig Hangul with a Roman system is even more laughable. Look at the reasons for his suggestion, (e)-(h). First, (e). It is true that Hangul is not used for any other language than Korean. However, it does a very good job for that langauge, and Hannas does not explain why we have to measure the efficiency of a writing system on the basis of anything other than its working for the intended language.

Second, (f). Hannas seems to have a reversed view about softwares: Rather than making them work for us, *we* should try to go along with them well. However, the truth is that nowadays, every widely used operating system was improved to support Hangul, and so the softwares came to serve the people, not the opposite.

Third, my last point also covers (g): In recent operaring systems, displaying a Hangul letter has become just as easy as displaying an English letter. And, typing Hangul texts is potentially more effective, because it is possible to design the system so that you can input the consonant and vowel at the same time.

Fourth, (h). Again, Hannas complains that somehow, syllabilistic writing system is intrinsically bad. My same objection: He provides no argument for that.

Finally, let me talk about (b), his claim that the Chinese writing system have kept the East Asian countries from scientific creativity. To defend this claim, he points out that historically, those countries have not made lots of contribution to science. But compare the following arguments:

Premise 1. Not many East Asian people have been good scientists.
Premise 2. If Premise 1, it is because of their poor writing system.
Conclusion. Not many East Asian people have been good scientists because of their poor writing system

Premise 1. Not many African Americans have been good scientists.
Premise 2. If Premise 1, it is because of their poor intelligence.
Conclusion. Not many African Americans have been good scientists because of their poor intelligence.

If you accept the first argument, why don't you accept the second?

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.