1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Written Language & Literacy
  4. Volume 24, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

It has often been assumed that there is, or should be, a one-to-one correspondence between graphs and linguistic units in writing systems as the norm. This is not merely doubtful in terms of descriptive accuracy. Conceptualizing writing systems in such a way also has profound consequences for the application of typological categories to specific cases. In this paper we first suggest a working definition of polygraphy, also touching upon its demarcation from adjacent concepts such as ligatures and diacritics. Having demonstrated that polygraphy is in fact fundamental to a significant number of typologically diverse writing systems, we argue in favor of a typology of writing systems taking the ubiquity of polygraphy into due account, with definitions going beyond one-to-one correspondences as the default.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
2022-01-21
2023-09-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adam, Isabell
    (2014) Digraph. InMartin Neef, Rüdiger Weingarten & Said Sahel (eds.), Schriftlinguistik. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/database/WSK/entry/wsk_id_wsk_artikel_artikel_13182/html
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailey, Nathan
    (1730) Dictionarium Britannicum: Or a More Compleat Universal Etymological English Dictionary Than Any Extant. London: T. Cox.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloch, Bernard
    (1950) Studies in Colloquial Japanese IV: Phonemics. Language26.1: 86–125. 10.2307/410409
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410409 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks, Greg
    (2015) Dictionary of the British English Spelling System. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. 10.11647/OBP.0053
     https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0053 [Google Scholar]
  5. Carney, Edward
    (2012) A Survey of English Spelling. London, New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203199916
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203199916 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Yuen Ren
    (1968) Language and Symbolic Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen, Liwei
    (2003) Nitchū ryōgengo-no kōshō-ni miru jukujikun-no keisei. Kokugogaku54.3: 30–43. https://bibdb.ninjal.ac.jp/SJL/view.php?h_id=2140300430
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Colomo, Katarina
    (2013) Mehrgraph. InMartin Neef, Rüdiger Weingarten & Said Sahel (eds.), Schriftlinguistik. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://www.degruyter.com/database/WSK/entry/wsk_id_wsk_artikel_artikel_14546/html
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulmas, Florian
    (1996) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2003) Writing Systems. An Introduction to their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Daniels, Peter T.
    (1990) Fundamentals of Grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society110.4: 727–731. 10.2307/602899
     https://doi.org/10.2307/602899 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006) On beyond alphabets. Written Language & Literacy9.1: 7–24. 10.1075/wll.9.1.03dan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.9.1.03dan [Google Scholar]
  13. (2018) An exploration of writing. Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Daniels, Peter T. & William Bright
    (eds.) (1996) The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DeFrancis, John
    (1989) Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Diller, Anthony
    (1996) Thai and Lao Writing. InPeter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems, 457–466. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Du Halde, Jean-Baptiste
    (1736) The General History of China, vol.2. London: Watts.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gallmann, Peter
    (1986) The graphic elements of German written language. InGerhard Augst (ed.), New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography, 43–79. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110867329.43
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867329.43 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
    (2009) The Writing Revolution. Cuneiform to the Internet. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2012) Maldivian Thaana, Japanese kana, and the representation of moras in writing. Writing Systems Research4.1: 91–102. 10.1080/17586801.2012.693459
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2012.693459 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2017) Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research9.1: 14–35. 10.1080/17586801.2017.1308239
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2017.1308239 [Google Scholar]
  22. Haarmann, Harald
    (1989) Symbolic Values of Foreign Language Use. From the Japanese Case to a General Sociolinguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110868395
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110868395 [Google Scholar]
  23. Haas, W.
    (1976) Writing: The basic options. InW. Haas (ed.), Writing without letters, 131–208. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Handel, Zev
    (2015) Logography and the classification of writing systems: A response to Unger. Scripta7: 109–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill, Archibald A.
    (1967) The typology of writing systems. InWilliam M. Austin (ed.), Papers in Linguistics in Honor of Léon Dostert, 92–99. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111675886‑008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111675886-008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Honda, Keisuke
    (2007) Kana digraphs and morae. A structural analysis. Written Language & Literacy10.1: 65–82. 10.1075/wll.10.1.05hon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.10.1.05hon [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) On the moraic nature of hiragana and katakana. Tsukuba ōyō gengogaku kenkyū18: 33–46. hdl.handle.net/2241/114958
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) What Do Kanji Graphs Represent in the Current Japanese Writing system? Towards a Unified Model of Kanji as Written Signs. InYannis Haralambous (ed.), Graphemics in the 21st Century. Brest, June 13–15, 2018. Proceedings, 185–208. Brest: Fluxus Editions. 10.36824/2018‑graf‑hond
     https://doi.org/10.36824/2018-graf-hond [Google Scholar]
  29. Joyce, Terry
    (2011) The significance of the morphographic principle for the classification of writing systems. Written Language & Literacy14.1: 58–81. 10.1075/wll.14.1.04joy
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.1.04joy [Google Scholar]
  30. Kabashima, Tadao
    (1977) Moji-no taikei-to kōzō. InŌno Susumu & Shibata Takeshi (eds.), Iwanami kōza Nihongo, vol. 8: Moji, 23–60. Tōkyō: Iwanami shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (1979) Nihon-no moji: hyōki taikei-o kangaeru. Tōkyō: Iwanami shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Kindaichi, Haruhiko
    (1950) ‘Gooku’ to ‘gōku’: hiki-onsetsu-no teishō. Kokugo-to kokubungaku27.1: 46–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kircher, Athanasius
    (1667) China monumentis […] illustrata. Amsterdam: Meurs.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Kirkby, John
    (1746) A New English Grammar, or, Guide to the English Tongue. London: R. Manby and H. S. Cox.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kurzon, Dennis
    (2008) A brief note on diacritics. Written Language & Literacy11.1: 90–94. 10.1075/wll.11.1.07kur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.11.1.07kur [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, Ki-Moon & S. Robert Ramsey
    (2011) A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511974045
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974045 [Google Scholar]
  37. Matsunaga, Sachiko
    (1996) The Linguistic Nature of Kanji Reexamined: Do Kanji Represent Only Meanings?. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese30.2: 1–22. 10.2307/489563
     https://doi.org/10.2307/489563 [Google Scholar]
  38. Meletis, Dimitrios
    (2015) Graphetik. Form und Materialität von Schrift. Glückstadt: Hülsbusch. https://unipub.uni-graz.at/urn:nbn:at:at-ubg:3-6661
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing. Writing Systems Research11.1: 26–49. 10.1080/17586801.2019.1697412
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2019.1697412 [Google Scholar]
  40. Neef, Martin
    (2004) The relation of vowel letters to phonological syllables in English and German. Written Language & Literacy7.2: 205–234. 10.1075/wll.7.2.05nee
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.7.2.05nee [Google Scholar]
  41. Nguyễn, Đình-Hòa
    (1996) Vietnamese. InPeter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems, 691–695. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Poser, William J.
    (1992) The Structural Typology of Phonological Writing. Handout for a presentation to theLinguistic Society of America, Philadelphia, January 12, 1992.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2004) Phonological Writing and Phonological Representation. Handout for a presentation given atHarvard University, December 10, 2004.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ratcliffe, Robert R.
    (2001) What do “phonemic” writing systems represent?: Arabic Huruuf, Japanese Kana, and the Moraic Principle. Written Language & Literacy4.1: 1–14. 10.1075/wll.4.1.02rat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.4.1.02rat [Google Scholar]
  45. Rickmeyer, Jens
    (2014) Japanische Morphosyntax. Second, revised edition. Tübingen: Edition Julius Groos im Stauffenburg-Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Rogers, Henry
    (2005) Writing Systems. A Linguistic Approach. Malden: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sampson, Geoffrey
    (1985) Writing Systems. A Linguistic Introduction. London: Hutchinson.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. (2015) Writing Systems. Second edition. Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Schäfer, Roland
    (2018) Einführung in die grammatische Beschreibung des Deutschen. Third, revised edition. Berlin: Language Science Press. 10.5281/zenodo.1421660
     https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1421660 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sproat, Richard
    (2000) A Computational Theory of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) A note on Unger’s ‘What linguistic units do Chinese characters represent?’. Written Language & Literacy16.1: 107–111. 10.1075/wll.16.1.05spr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.16.1.05spr [Google Scholar]
  52. Sweet, Henry
    (1877) A Handbook of Phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Tranter, Nicolas
    (2013) Logography and layering: A functional cross-linguistic analysis. Written Language & Literacy16.1: 1–31. 10.1075/wll.16.1.01tra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.16.1.01tra [Google Scholar]
  54. Unger, J. Marshall
    (2011) What linguistic units do Chinese characters represent?. Written Language & Literacy14.2: 293–302. 10.1075/wll.14.2.06ung
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.2.06ung [Google Scholar]
  55. (2014) Empirical Evidence and the Typology of Writing Systems: A Response to Handel. Scripta6: 75–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2016) Avoiding Circularity: A Response to Handel. Scripta8: 87–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Vachek, Josef
    (1959) Two chapters on written English. Brno Studies in English1: 7–38. hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/117986
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vance, Timothy J.
    (1987) An Introduction to Japanese Phonology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2008) The Sounds of Japanese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. (2014) What Students of Japanese Can Learn from Akkadian Cuneiform. Japanese Language and Literature48.2: 341–379. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24394414
     [Google Scholar]
  61. van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J.
    (1996) The Tibetan Script and Derivatives. InPeter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems, 431–441. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Venezky, Richard L.
    (2004) In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language & Literacy7.2: 139–163. 10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven
     https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven [Google Scholar]
  63. Webb, John
    (1669) An Historical Essay Endeavoring a Probability that the Language of the Empire of China is the Primitive Language. London: Brook.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wenck, Günther
    (1959) Japanische Phonetik, vol. 4: Erscheinungen und Probleme des japanischen Lautwandels. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (1966) The Phonemics of Japanese. Questions and Attempts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
Loading
<Th>e ubi<qu>ity of polygra<ph>y and its significan<ce> for <th>e typology of <wr>iti<ng> systems
Written Language & Literacy 24, 171 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.00052.ost
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): diacritics; digraphs; ligatures; polygraphs; polygraphy; typology of writing systems

Most Cited

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