1887
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

is founded on the notion of naturalness and claims that when a linguistic phenomenon can be processed by humans with little effort, both sensomotorically and cognitively, it is deemed more natural compared to other, more complex phenomena. Drawing on evidence such as language change, language acquisition, and language disorders, various parameters of naturalness (e.g., biuniqueness, constructional iconicity) have been postulated, which focus on the phonological and morphological subsystems of language. This paper offers an outline of how naturalness can be adapted to grapholinguistic phenomena. (cf. Weingarten 2011), extended to , is assessed as a method that can be used to reveal naturalness parameters which apply to both material () and linguistic () aspects of writing. The reduction of extrinsic symmetry across various scripts will be discussed as an example. By integrating these preliminary theoretical ideas into the framework of NT, it is demonstrated that so-called could offer promising new insights as well as a method for future comparative analyses of scripts and writing systems.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00010.mel
2018-11-02
2019-09-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anbar, Ada
    (1986) Reading acquisition of preschool children without systematic instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly1: 69–83. doi: 10.1016/0885‑2006(86)90007‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(86)90007-4 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, Charles-James N.
    (1974) Naturalness in historical reconstruction and changes that are not natural. InAnthony Bruck (ed.), Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology, April 18, 1974, 13–20. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1984) The concept of balance and linguistic naturalness. Language Sciences6.2: 229–238. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(84)80018‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(84)80018-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balestra, Miriam, Annalen Appelt & Martin Neef
    (2014) Systematische Beschränkungen für Schreibungen im grammatischen Wortschatz des Deutschen: der Konsonant [f]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft33.2: 129–163. doi: 10.1515/zfs‑2014‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2014-0006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baroni, Antonio
    (2011) Alphabetic vs. non-alphabetic writing: linguistic fit and natural tendencies. Rivista di Linguistica23.2: 127–159.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berg, Kristian
    (2016) Graphematische Variation. InBirgit Mesch & Christina Noack (eds.), System, Norm und Gebrauch – drei Seiten derselben Medaille? Orthographische Kompetenz und Performanz zwischen System, Norm und Empirie, 9–23. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bertacca, Antonio
    (2002) Description and explanation of language change. InKatarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Jarosław Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics, 1–23. München: LINCOM.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bigozzi, Luca, Christian Tarchi & Giuliana Pinto
    (2016) Spelling across tasks and levels of language in a transparent orthography. PLoS ONE11.9: e0163033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163033
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163033 [Google Scholar]
  9. Birnbacher, Dieter
    (2014) Naturalness: is the ‘natural’ preferable to the ‘artificial’?Transl. byDavid Carus. Lanham: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bittner, Andreas
    (1988) Is anything ‘more natural’? Considerations on establishing a hierarchy of naturalness principles (NP). Linguistische StudienA 188: 23–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brosh, Hezi
    (2015) Arabic spelling: errors, perceptions, and strategies. Foreign Language Annals48.4: 584–603. doi: 10.1111/flan.12158
    https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12158 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cahill, Michael
    (2014) Non-linguistic factors in orthographies. InMichael Cahill & Keren Rice (eds.), Developing orthographies for unwritten languages, 9–25. Dallas: SIL International.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Changizi, Mark A. & Shinsuke Shimojo
    (2005) Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history. Proceedings of the Royal Society B272: 267–275. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2942
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2942 [Google Scholar]
  14. Changizi, Mark A., Qiong Zhang, Hao Ye & Shinsuke Shimojo
    (2006) The structures of letters and symbols throughout human history are selected to match those found in objects in natural scenes. The American Naturalist167.5: E117–E139. doi: 10.1086/502806
    https://doi.org/10.1086/502806 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chao, Yuen Ren
    (1968) Language and symbolic systems. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chen, Ping
    (2004) Modern Chinese: history and sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cook, Vivian & Benedetta Bassetti
    (2005) An introduction to researching second language writing systems. InVivian Cook & Benedetta Bassetti (eds.), Second language writing systems, 1–67. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Coulmas, Florian
    (1996) The Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2009) Evaluating merit – the evolution of writing reconsidered. Writing Systems Research1.1: 5–17. doi: 10.1093/wsr/wsp001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsp001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Crocco Galèas, Grazia
    (1998) The parameters of Natural Morphology. Padova: Unipress.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniels, Peter T.
    (1990) Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society110.4: 727–731. doi: 10.2307/602899
    https://doi.org/10.2307/602899 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2006) On beyond alphabets. Written Language and Literacy9.1: 7–24. doi: 10.1075/wll.9.1.03dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.9.1.03dan [Google Scholar]
  23. (2009a) Grammatology. InDavid R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 25–45. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511609664.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609664.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2009b) Two notes on terminology. Written Language and Literacy12.2: 277–281. doi: 10.1075/wll.12.2.09dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.12.2.09dan [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017) Writing systems. InMark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The handbook of linguistics, 2nd edition, 75–94. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781119072256.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2018) An exploration of writing. Bristol: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Derrida, Jacques
    (1967) De la grammatologie. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
    (1979) The study of Natural Phonology. InDaniel A. Dinnsen & Stephen R. Anderson (eds.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2009) Hypotheses of Natural Phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics45.1: 1–31. doi: 10.2478/v10010‑009‑0002‑x
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0002-x [Google Scholar]
  30. Dressler, Wolfgang U.
    (1980) Naturalness as a principle in genetic and typological linguistics: introduction. InTorben Thrane, Vibeke Winge, Lachlan Mackenzie, Una Canger & Niels Ege (eds.), Typology and genetics of language, 75–91. Copenhagen: Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (1988) Zur Bedeutung der Sprachtypologie in der Natürlichen Morphologie. InJens Lüdtke (ed.), Energeia und Ergon, Vol.3, 199–208. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1989) Semiotische Parameter einer textlinguistischen Natürlichkeitstheorie. Wien: Verlag d. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1999a) What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)?Prague Linguistic Circle Papers3: 135–144. doi: 10.1075/plcp.3.11dre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/plcp.3.11dre [Google Scholar]
  34. (1999b) On a semiotic theory of preferences in language. Peirce Seminar Papers4: 389–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2000) Naturalness. InGeert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology: an international handbook of inflection and word-formation, Vol.1, 288–296. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110111286.1.4.288
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110111286.1.4.288 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2006) Natural Morphology. InE. K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 539–540. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00120‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00120-6 [Google Scholar]
  37. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel
    (1987) Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10 [Google Scholar]
  38. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gary Libben & Katharina Korecky-Kröll
    (2014) Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology. InBrian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 181–196. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0011 [Google Scholar]
  39. Dürscheid, Christa
    (2016) Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. 5th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna
    (2002) Challenges for Natural Linguistics in the 21st century: a personal view. InKatarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Jarosław Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics, 103–128. München: LINCOM.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ehlich, Konrad
    (2007) Sprache und sprachliches Handeln. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110922721
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110922721 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fedorova, Liudmila L.
    (2013) The development of graphic representation in abugida writing: the akshara’s grammar. Lingua Posnaniensis55.2: 49–66. doi: 10.2478/linpo‑2013‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2013-0013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Fishman, Joshua
    (1977) Advances in the creation and revision of writing systems. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110807097
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110807097 [Google Scholar]
  44. Fuhrhop, Nanna & Franziska Buchmann
    (2009) Die Längenhierarchie: Zum Bau der graphematischen Silbe. Linguistische Berichte218: 127–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gelb, Ignace Jay
    (1969) A Study of Writing. 2nd edition (3rd impression). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Giannouli, Vaitsa
    (2013) Visual symmetry perception. Encephalos50: 31–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
    (2017) Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research9.1: 14–35. doi: 10.1080/17586801.2017.1308239
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2017.1308239 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gregg, Noël
    (1995) Written expression disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978‑94‑011‑0297‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0297-1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Günther, Hartmut
    (1988) Schriftliche Sprache: Strukturen geschriebener Wörter und ihre Verarbeitung beim Lesen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110935851
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110935851 [Google Scholar]
  50. Halliday, M. A. K.
    [1977] (2010) Ideas about language. InJonathan J. Webster & M. A. K. Halliday (eds.), On language and linguistics, 92–112. London & New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Haspelmath, Martin
    (2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42.1: 25–70. doi: 10.1017/S0022226705003683
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003683 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hockett, Charles F.
    (1951) Review of Nationalism and Language Reform in China, byJ. DeFrancis. Language27.3: 439–445. doi: 10.2307/409788
    https://doi.org/10.2307/409788 [Google Scholar]
  53. Hurch, Bernhard
    (1988) Über Aspiration: Ein Kapitel aus der natürlichen Phonologie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (1998) Optimalität und Natürlichkeit. ZAS Papers in Linguistics13: 115–139.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2006) Natural Phonology. InE. K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 541–543. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00090‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00090-0 [Google Scholar]
  56. Hurch, Bernhard & Geoffrey Nathan
    (1996) Naturalness in phonology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung49.3: 231–245. doi: 10.1524/stuf.1996.49.3.231
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1996.49.3.231 [Google Scholar]
  57. Jakobson, Roman
    (1941) Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Kao, Henry S. R., Gerard P. Van Galen & Rumjahn Hoosain
    (eds.) (1986) Graphonomics: contemporary research in handwriting. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Katz, Leonard & Ram Frost
    (1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: the orthographic depth hypothesis. InRam Frost & Leonard Katz (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, 67–84. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62789‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2 [Google Scholar]
  60. Keller, Rudi
    (2014) Sprachwandel: von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. 4th edition. Tübingen: Francke.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kohrt, Manfred
    (1987) Theoretische Aspekte der deutschen Orthographie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111371580
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371580 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kurzon, Dennis
    (2008) A brief note on diacritics. Written Language and Literacy11.1: 90–94. doi: 10.1075/wll.11.1.07kur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.11.1.07kur [Google Scholar]
  63. Lachmann, Thomas & Thomas Geyer
    (2003) Letter reversals in dyslexia: is the case really closed? A critical review and conclusions. Psychology Science45: 50–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Law, Nancy, W. W. Ki, A. L. S. Chung, P. Y. Ko & H. C. Lam
    (1998) Children’s stroke sequence errors in writing Chinese characters. Reading and writing10: 267–292.10.1023/A:1008091730338
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008091730338 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lewis, Geoffrey
    (2000) Turkish Grammar. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Luschützky, Hans C.
    (2006) Ältere Entwicklungen in der natürlichen Morphologie. InSylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences, Vol.3, 2340–2351. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110167368.3.35.2340
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110167368.3.35.2340 [Google Scholar]
  67. Mattingly, Ignatius G.
    (1985) Did orthographies evolve?Remedial and Special Education6.6: 18–23. doi: 10.1177/074193258500600605
    https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258500600605 [Google Scholar]
  68. Mayerthaler, Willi
    (1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. (1987) System-independent morphological naturalness. InDressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (1987), 25–58. doi: 10.1075/slcs.10.13may
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10.13may
  70. Mayerthaler, Willi, Günther Fliedl & Christian Winkler
    (1998) Lexikon der Natürlichkeitstheoretischen Syntax und Morphosyntax. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. McCardle, Peggy, Brett Miller, Jun Ren Lee & Ovid J. L. Tzeng
    (2011) Dyslexia across languages: orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Meletis, Dimitrios
    (2015) Graphetik: Form und Materialität von Schrift. Glückstadt: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Miyamoto, Tadao
    (2007) The evolution of writing systems: against the Gelbian hypothesis. InAkito Sakurai, Kôiti Hasida & Katsumi Nitta (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 345–356. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑540‑71009‑7_31
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71009-7_31 [Google Scholar]
  74. Munske, Horst H.
    (1994) Ist eine „natürliche“ Graphematik möglich?InOtmar Werner (ed.), Probleme der Graphie, 9–24. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Neef, Martin
    (2005) Die Graphematik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110914856
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110914856 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2015) Writing systems as modular objects: proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics1: 708–721. doi: 10.1515/opli‑2015‑0026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0026 [Google Scholar]
  77. Neef, Martin, Said Sahel & Rüdiger Weingarten
    (eds.) (2012ff.) Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Nerius, Dieter
    (ed.) (2007) Deutsche Orthographie. 4th edition. Hildesheim: Olms.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nerius, Dieter & Gerhard Augst
    (eds.) (1988) Probleme der geschriebenen Sprache. Beiträge zur Schriftlinguistik auf dem XIV. internationalen Linguistenkongreß 1987 in Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Olson, David R.
    (1996) The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Orešnik, Janez
    (2004) Naturalness in (morpho)syntax: English examples. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Pegado, Filipe, Kimihiro Nakamura, Laurent Cohen & Stanislas Dehaene
    (2011) Breaking the symmetry: mirror discrimination for single letters but not for pictures in the Visual Word Form Area. NeuroImage55: 742–749.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.043
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.043 [Google Scholar]
  83. Reitz, Jela
    (1994) Erworbene Schriftsprachstörungen: eine neurolinguistische Aufgaben sammlung zur Erfassung schriftsprachlicher Leistungen. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978‑3‑322‑93526‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-93526-7 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rezec, Oliver
    (2009) Zur Struktur des deutschen Schriftsystems. PhD DissertationLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
  85. (2013) Ein differenzierteres Strukturmodell des deutschen Schriftsystems. Linguistische Berichte234: 227–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Rogers, Henry
    (1995) Optimal orthographies. InInsup Taylor & David R. Olson, (eds.), Scripts and literacy: reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters, 31–43. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1162‑1_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1162-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2005) Writing systems: a linguistic approach. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Salomon, Richard
    (2012) Some principles and patterns of script change. InStephen D. Houston (ed.), The shape of script: how and why writing systems change, 119–133. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Sampson, Geoffrey
    [1985] (2015)Writing systems: a linguistic introduction. 2nd edition. Bristol: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Saniei, Andisheh
    (2011) Who is an ideal native speaker?!International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research26: 74–78.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Schmid, Stephan
    (1997) The Naturalness Differential Hypothesis: cross-linguistic influence and universal preferences in interlanguage phonology and morphology. Folia Linguistica31.3–4: 331–348. doi: 10.1515/flin.1997.31.3‑4.331
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1997.31.3-4.331 [Google Scholar]
  92. Schreiber, Gordian
    (submitted). Visual politeness: remarks on cursivization as found in pre-modern Japanese handbooks on letter writing. InThe idea of writing, vol.4. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sebba, Mark
    (2009) Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research. Writing Systems Research1.1: 35–49. doi: 10.1093/wsr/wsp002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsp002 [Google Scholar]
  94. Share, David L.
    (2008) On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of over-reliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychologial Bulletin134.4: 584–616. doi: 10.1037/00332909.134.4.584
    https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.134.4.584 [Google Scholar]
  95. (2014) Alphabetism in reading science. Frontiers in psychology5.752. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00752
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00752 [Google Scholar]
  96. Share, David L. & Peter T. Daniels
    (2016) Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets and orthographic depth: Reflections on Rimzhim, Katz and Fowler (2014). Writing Systems Research8.1: 17–31. doi: 10.1080/17586801.2015.1016395
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2015.1016395 [Google Scholar]
  97. Smalley, William A.
    (ed.) (1963) Orthography studies: articles on new writing systems. London: United Bible Societies.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Smith, Janet S.
    (Shibamoto) (1996) Japanese Writing. InPeter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 209–217. New York, Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Stampe, David
    (1973) A dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington: IULC.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Unseth, Peter
    (2005) Sociolinguistic parallels between choosing scripts and languages. Written Language and Literacy8.1: 19–42. doi: 10.1075/wll.8.1.02uns
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.8.1.02uns [Google Scholar]
  101. Venezky, Richard L.
    (1977) Principles for the design of practical writing systems. InJoshua Fishman (ed.) (1977), 37–54.
  102. (2004) In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language and Literacy7.2: 139–163. doi: 10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven [Google Scholar]
  103. Watt, W. C.
    (2015) What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? VII: Sleight of hand. Semiotica207: 65–88. doi: 10.1515/sem‑2015‑0064
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0064 [Google Scholar]
  104. Weingarten, Rüdiger
    (2011) Comparative graphematics. Written Language and Literacy14.1: 12–38. doi: 10.1075/wll.14.1.02wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.1.02wei [Google Scholar]
  105. Wiebelt, Alexandra
    (2003) Die Entwicklung der Symmetrie in der Schrift: Wie Objektkonstanz die Genese von Buchstabenformen beeinflusst. Linguistische Berichte195: 295–323.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. (2004) Do symmetrical letter pairs affect readability?Written Language and Literacy7.2: 275–304. doi: 10.1075/wll.7.2.07wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.7.2.07wie [Google Scholar]
  107. Wurzel, Wolfgang U.
    (1984) Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. (1987) System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. InDressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (1987), 59–96. doi: 10.1075/slcs.10.22wur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.10.22wur
  109. (1994) Natural Morphology. InR. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2590–2598. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. (1997) Natürlicher Grammatischer Wandel, ‚unsichtbare Hand‘ und Sprachökonomie – Wollen wir wirklich so Grundverschiedenes?InThomas Birkmann, Heinz Klingenberg, Damaris Nübling & Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende Germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik: Festschrift für Otmar Werner, 295–308. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110931259‑020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110931259-020 [Google Scholar]
  111. Yan, Zhenjiang
    (2002) Der geheime Phono- und Eurozentrismus des Redens von Schrift. InErika Greber, Konrad Ehlich & Jan-Dirk Müller (eds.), Materialität und Medialität von Schrift, 151–164. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhao, Shouhui & Richard B. Baldauf Jr.
    (2008) Planning Chinese characters: reaction, evolution or revolution?Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978‑0‑387‑48576‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-48576-8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00010.mel
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00010.mel
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error