Abstract:Abstract Whether China’s rise means Chinese becomes a global language like English is a much discussed topic. Most academics and media commentators argue its character based writing system will prevent this because it is difficult and time consuming to learn. In this article I present four counter arguments informed by an analysis of the language practices, language ideologies and language planning surrounding the Chinese writing system and the characteristics of contemporary global English. Firstly, I argue this view is based on the flawed assumption that all learners of Chinese must learn to read and write, and must do so to a native-like level. This does not reflect the global use of English, as not everyone can read and write, and certainly not to a native-like level. People learn as much English as is required for their purposes, and the same would apply if Chinese was a global language. Next, I argue this view ignores the use of devices like computers and mobile phones which convert Pinyin Romanisation into characters, meaning learners need only learn Pinyin and character recognition, saving considerable time and effort. Thirdly, I show there is a historical precedent for the adoption of characters outside of China in the form of the long-standing use of written Chinese for scholarly and official purposes in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. This occurred due to China’s status as the most powerful country in the region, if not the world, and demonstrates people will learn and use characters if there is sufficient reason to do so. Finally, I argue this view focuses excessively on linguistic properties. The inconsistencies and irregularities of English’s writing system show linguistic properties do not determine whether a language becomes global. I conclude a character based writing system will not, in and of itself, prevent Chinese attaining global language status.

A bigger problem for ideography: The pervasiveness of linguistic structure

A Cognitive Account of the Puzzle of Ideography

Functional ideographies are composite semiotic systems

Finding structure in logographic writing with library learning

The “handedness” of language: Directional symmetry breaking of sign usage in words

Chinese ideographic writing as a picture of the world: theoretical approach

Reconsidering Written Language

Iconicity as a General Property of Language: Evidence from Spoken and Signed Languages

Metaphors and the Invention of Writing

Iconicity as structure mapping

Structure vs. use in heritage language

Thinking Scripts

Reading and Writing Words: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective

Why is language well-designed for communication? (Commentary on Christiansen and Chater: 'Language as shaped by the brain')

Phonology facilitates deeply opaque logographic writing

Compositionality, Metaphor, and the Evolution of Language

Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren't languages more iconic?

On the cognitive strategy of ideographic writing: Taking the semanto-phonetic structure of Chu bamboo-strip scripts as an example

Ideational semiosis: a tri-stratal perspective on grammatical metaphor

Finding Complexity in Language Identity Surveys

Will a character based writing system stop Chinese becoming a global language? A review and reconsideration of the debate