Shuowen Jiezi and Textual Criticism in China

Creamer, Thomas

doi:10.1093/ijl/2.3.176

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of SE, it is somewhat easier to detect the representative characteristics or qualities than in the previous case of PG. Views on SE also vary: ‘indication of the matter or event’; ‘pictoriality’; ‘self-explanatoriness’ (Creamer, 1989: 178); ‘immediate discernibility’ and ‘(pictograph-)mediated comprehensibility’; 16 and ‘abstract conceptualisastion’. Taking the same step of abstraction, we can see that SE possesses ‘abstract codification (略號化) or encoding (符號化)’ as its own distinct feature (Lee, 2009: 140–141; Yurn, 2015: 164), which also rests upon ‘the harmony between formativeness and abstractness’, yet even stronger than that of PG (Yin and Wang, 2007 [2012]: 81).…”

Section: Multi-dialectical Analyses Of the Four Ways Of Writing12mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Wikipedia , with high probability of popular uses, suggests 象形 – pictographs, 指事 – ideographs, 會意 – compound ideographs and 形聲 – phono-semantic compounds. Moving into the academic realm, we can first see Creamer (1989: 178) render 六書 as the Six Categories, and them as 指事 – self-explanatory characters, 象形 – pictographic characters, 形聲 – picto-phonetic characters, 會意 – composite compounds, etc. Although the detailedness of translation makes the equivalents seem plausible, they look literatim, and thus rather old-fashioned as well.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A new perspective on hanzi: Based upon  the multi-dialectical analysis of the Four  Ways of Writing

Jeon

2021

Journal of Chinese Writing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work is, most of all, designed to wrestle with taken-for-granted explanations as to how hanzi is composed and in what ways the composition the Four Ways of Writing (四書) can be analysed. Beginning with posing a self-reflective question on the academic identities of us, the hanzi civilisation researchers, and looking for a possible answer to it within the context of an Eagletonian conceptualisation of human animality or creatureliness, the work then methodologises the multi-dialectical analysis by virtue of méta-linguistique, transduction, and abstraction concreté. The full-scale analysis of the Four Ways of Writing comes next, taking four steps: first, synthesising the existing definitions, explanations and interpretations of them; second, abstracting the synthesis up to the multi-dialectical analysis; third, introducing a topology of the Four Ways of Writing; and fourth, analysing characters related to and expanding from two radical characters of 門 and 刀 with the aid of a dynamics of trialectics between the form, sound and meaning. Resting upon all the analyses performed, the work suggests the following conclusion. Amongst hanzi’s main characteristics is morphographicality (表形性), still the most distinctive within the analytical framework of the Four Ways of Writing. It is the very form of hanzi, as a matter of fact, that also turns out to be multi-dialectical: first, that which constitutes writing as the character trialectically related with both the sound and meaning; second, that which characterises writing as écriture of the dialectical relationship between human beings and nature; and last, that which dialectically elucidates who we are and what we are capable of.

show abstract

Section: Multi-dialectical Analyses Of the Four Ways Of Writing12mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%