gòngtōng
(gòng·tōng
shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]]
共通)
👈🏼 Tap/click to show/hide the “flashcard”
As part of a series of posts about some common myths about Chinese characters, this post discusses the Universality Myth. So, this week’s MEotW is “gòngtōng
(gòng·tōng
shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]]
共通)”, an expression that seems to express well the supposed universality that is the subject of this myth.
In “gòngtōng
(gòng·tōng
shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]]
共通)”, “gòng
(share | common | together | altogether
共)” means “share | common | together | altogether”. This morpheme also appears in other well-known expressions such as “gòngtóng
(gòng·tóng
shared · {same | together}
共同)”,
“gònghé‐guó
((gòng·hé
shared · harmony → [republic]
共和)‐(guó
country; nation; state
国
國)
→ [republic])”, and
“Gòngchǎn
(Gòng·chǎn
{Commonly Possessing} · {Produced (Things) → [Property]} → [Communist]
共产
共產)‐Dǎng
(Party
党
黨/党)”.
As for “tōng
({[(going)] through[(out)]; open [to]} [→ [common; general | connecting/communicating [to/with] [→ [logical; coherent]]]]
通)”, it here literally means “through”, and effectively means “connecting” or “in common”. It also appears in well-known expressions such as “gōutōng
(gōu·tōng
{(through) channel} · {(going) through → [communicating]} → [communicating; communication | linking up]
沟通
溝通)”,
“jiāotōng
(jiāo·tōng
crossing; intersecting; meeting; joining · {(going) through → [connecting; communicating]} → [traffic; communications; transportation]
交通)”,
“pǔtōng
(pǔ·tōng
common; general; universal; widespread · {through(out) → [general; common]} → [ordinary; common; average; general]
普通)”, and
“tōngguò
(tōng·guò
through · passing → [passing through] → [through]
通过
通過)”.
When put together, the morphemes in “gòngtōng
(gòng·tōng
shared · {through → [connecting | [in] common]} [→ [applicable to both/all; shared; common; universal]]
共通)” can effectively mean “shared; common; universal”, which in itself can generally be good. In fact, in our ministry, we look for “gòngtōng
(gòng·tōng
shared · {through → [in common]} → [common]
共通)
diǎn
(points
点
點)” (common ground) with those with whom we speak. How universal, though, are Chinese characters? Are they really more universal than, say, alphabets?
Basis and Beliefs
In the book The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, linguist and sinologist John DeFrancis writes the following in the chapter entitled “The Universality Myth”:
The Universality Myth is the logical extension of the Ideographic Myth. It is based on the threefold belief that:
1. Chinese characters enable a speaker from Beijing and another from Canton to communicate in writing even though they cannot understand each other’s speech. …
2. Chinese characters make it possible to read today’s newspapers as well as poems written a thousand years ago and philosophical essays written long before Christ. …
3. Chinese characters can function as a universal means of communication among people speaking totally unrelated languages. …
…
Implicitly or explicitly, the statements are meant to contrast Chinese characters with the familiar alphabetic scripts of the West. Chinese characters, it is believed, can do all these things, whereas alphabetic scripts cannot.
In other words, the Universality Myth regarding Chinese characters is that these visible, supposedly ideographic (representing meaning visually, without dependence on speech sounds) symbols of worldly Chinese culture can function across barriers of space, time, and language as universal enablers of communication. That seems amazing, if true. But, is it true? And, is it any more true for Chinese characters than it is for alphabets?
Testing the Relative Universality
DeFrancis goes on to test the Universality Myth by examining what it would take for an illiterate Mandarin speaker and an illiterate Cantonese speaker to learn how to communicate with each other by writing in characters, compared to what it would take for an illiterate French speaker and an illiterate Spanish speaker to learn how to communicate with each other by writing in French (which, as is widely known, is written using the Latin alphabet):
My Chinese colleagues estimate on the basis of their own experience and direct contact with the Chinese educational system that it takes seven to eight years for a Mandarin speaker to learn how to read and write three thousand characters and another year or two for a speaker of Cantonese to reach the same level in Standard Chinese. …My colleagues in French and Spanish estimate it would take the two imagined European illiterates less than half the time to reach a comparable level of proficiency in French.
…The overall picture is clear. It seems incontestable that both Europeans will find it easier to learn to read and write French than it be for either Cantonese or Mandarin speakers to learn to read and write Chinese. If we could add up the combined number of hours needed for the two members of each group to accomplish the same thing, the total would be enormously greater in the case of Chinese written in characters than in the case of French written in an alphabetic script. Even more significant, it would also be enormously greater for Chinese written in characters than for Chinese written in Pinyin. That is to say, it would be much easier for illiterates from Peking and those from Canton, even if the latter remain incapable of speaking Mandarin, to acquire the ability to communicate with each other by learning to read and write Standard Chinese written in Pinyin rather than in characters. Where, then, is the vaunted marvel of tongue-tied Chinese o’er-leaping barriers in speech by communicating with each other by means of those magical Chinese characters?
So, it’s possible for speakers of Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean, English, French, Spanish, etc. to learn Chinese characters and use these as a means of communication. However, they could also do this with Pīnyīn
(Pīn·yīn
{Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin]
拼音)! Also, it would actually be much faster and easier to do this with Pīnyīn
(Pīn·yīn
{Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin]
拼音) than it would be to do it with the crazy complex characters!
Going Back in Time
What about the claim that characters allow us to still be able to read Chinese writings from long ago? Concerning this, DeFrancis writes:
Apart from learning the characters in their current meanings, Chinese must also learn the frequently different meanings of characters in earlier usage and the definitely different syntactical structures of classical versus contemporary written Chinese. This ability involves considerable training in tasks notorious for their difficulty—tasks that involve mastering differences at least as great as those between current English and the language of Chaucer. Without going into great detail, it should be readily apparent that an illiterate Chinese, regardless of whether he speaks Cantonese or Mandarin, will have a much greater task in learning to read classical Chinese than will an illiterate European, regardless of whether he speaks Spanish or French, in learning to read Latin. In the case of those already literate in current Chinese or French, it is doubtful that Chinese readers would enjoy any advantage over Europeans in respect to the amount of additional effort required to read classical Chinese in contrast to Latin.
So, it would probably be harder for a Chinese person to learn characters and then learn classical Chinese, than it would be for a European person to learn the Latin alphabet, and then learn Latin!
For us Mandarin field language learners specifically, since Jehovah’s organization is continually moving forward with ever broader, deeper, and clearer understandings of various truths, we in contrast seek to use the newest, most up-to-date writings from the organization whenever possible. Even with regard to the Bible itself, first written long ago, we seek, as a rule, to use the most up-to-date translations available. For specific examples in this regard, Appendix A2 (English, Mandarin) of the New World Translation Bible lists ways in which the current version of this Bible has been carefully revised to be more beneficial for modern readers.
It’s worth noting that the Chinese versions of the organization’s publications used to be written only in Chinese characters, but the most recent versions of the organization’s important writings generally have Pīnyīn
(Pīn·yīn
{Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin]
拼音) available for them as well now.
Sunk Costs and Future Investments
Of course, those who have already spent years of hard work learning characters wouldn’t have to start that particular long and difficult process from zero (although, tíbǐ
(tí·bǐ
{carry (hanging down from the hand) → [raise; lift]} · pen; pencil; {writing brush} [→ [start writing; write]]
提笔
提筆)‐wàng
(forget
忘)‐zì
(character
字) (character amnesia) is real thing that takes constant ongoing effort to ward off). And, if they happen to meet others, even others who don’t speak the same language, who have also already spent years of hard work learning characters, then, yes, they might be able to use characters to imperfectly communicate with these others, to a limited extent—that is indeed one imperfect benefit arising from the massive sunk costs they have incurred in the process of learning characters.
However, those who have not already poured enormous amounts of time and effort into learning characters still have the opportunity to objectively weigh how much time and effort it is reasonable and worthwhile to sink into the characters going forward. As they consider this, they can keep in mind the inescapable reality that, due to the inherent extraordinary complexity of the characters, and due to the way that Jehovah actually designed us humans to use language, Pīnyīn
(Pīn·yīn
{Piecing Together of} · Sounds → [Pinyin]
拼音) and other sound-prioritizing writing systems (like Hangul, for those learning Korean) offer much greater ROI (return on investment) than characters do for those considering investing time and effort into learning how to actually communicate with others. Dedicated servants of Jehovah should also keep in mind that the time and energy they have are not theirs alone to spend or waste—their time, energy, etc. actually belong to Jehovah, and should thus be used and invested accordingly.
Anyway, to summarize, the Universality Myth regarding Chinese characters is…BUSTED!