Written Language & Literacy - Volume 26, Issue 1, 2023

In this paper we propose a formalized and expandable approach to the taxonomy of writing systems. Taking the mixed nature of writing systems fully into account, our approach focuses on the classification of functionally homogenous subsystems, which together and in interaction with each other constitute an overall writing system. Such subsystems make use of a script or a subset of a script, which is understood here as an inventory of graphs that is (conventionally considered to be) graphically homogeneous. A basic distinction is made into phonographic and morphographic systems, but complemented by an in principle open number of subtypes, building and expanding on Gnanadesikan (2017) and Poser (1992, 2004) for segmental and syllabic systems respectively. Types are designated by a notation that employs a set of symbols, relating to both form (boundedness of graphs and their organization into segmental spaces) and function (mapping type), but by separate means.

Since their coinage a quarter-century ago, the terms abugida and alphasyllabary (Bright 1999; Daniels & Bright 1996) have revolutionised our conceptualisation of writing systems. Together with alphabet, these terms have proven invaluable in classifying subtypes of segmentaries–writing systems whose grain size is the phonological segment (Gnanadesikan 2017). Nevertheless, there remain areas of ambiguity. Segmentaries that are either abugidas or alphasyllabaries–but not both–may be classified under various labels, and inconsistently so. Moreover, certain minoritised writing systems such as those based on Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics or Braille are only rarely covered in typological studies, despite the potential insights they offer.

In this paper, I use Bright’s (1999) and Gnanadesikan’s (2017) typology of vowelled segmentaries as the point of departure to propose an augmented classification based on specific graphematic criteria. Aside from illustrating the proposed typology by applying it to various writing systems, I also identify avenues for further refinement.

This paper seeks to reassess the balance between chaos and systematicity within the Japanese writing system (JWS), which is noted for its complexity. As potential factors for chaos, Section 2 focuses on two important conventions. The first is the simultaneous use of multiple scripts as components of a largely systematic whole, even though it also affords considerable levels of graphematic variation. The second convention of dual-readings turns on kanji graphematically mapping to both Native-Japanese (NJ) and Sino-Japanese (SJ) morphemes, which yields the JWS’s intriguing form of morphography. However, as a factor that is, to a considerable degree, a major source of systematicity, Section 3 outlines the graphematic representation of SJ compound words. More specifically, starting from the morphological structures of two-kanji compound words (2KCWs), Section 3 introduces the dominant morphological patterns of three-kanji (3KCWs) and four-kanji compound words (4KCWs), which underscore the significance of 2KCWs within the Japanese mental lexicon, and concludes by noting Hatano, Kuhara, and Akiyama’s (1981) study about inferring the meanings of SJ compound words.

In the Hellenistic age, contact with the Ionic alphabet used to write koine Greek rapidly changed the Pamphylian alphabet, initiating the processes of koineization and standardization. The analysis of three case studies (personal names with -muu̯a; personal names built from the root ϝαναξ-; -αυ and -ευ diphthongs) shows how the need to write dialectal personal names led to the creation of a ‘local standard’ of spellings suited to the koine alphabetic set. However, some features of the epichoric alphabet survived in competition with this local standard. It is therefore argued that the process of standardization of the Pamphylian alphabet in contact with the koine alphabet affected different alphabetic features according to the social and identity values given to them by the community.

We can observe a systematic reorganization of the Latin Spelling System in the II and I centuries BC. We will focus on the etiology and diffusion of < XS > spelling for the /ks/ cluster instead of < X >, highlighting the interplay between centripetal and centrifugal forces in the standardization process. Its etiology and further diffusion will be compared to the emergence of other spelling innovations in the Latin writing system of the second century BC. We will propose that the progressive integration of < XS > spelling in the systematic orthography of Latin was favored by both morpho-graphemic and phono-graphemic factors. Moreover, we will take into consideration the complex social network of the Roman Republic to trace back < XS > diffusion path. We will propose that, alongside the leading role of the urban elites in its diffusion, also local communities independently developed such a spelling variant, probably as a consequence of Greek systematic orthography’s influence.

The standardisation of English spelling is widely assumed to have happened, or at least started, during the fifteenth century, with a variety of theories about the location and spread of the process. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of a single spelling feature: the vowel in the word said. It demonstrates that there were four main variants used across the country during the fifteenth and early sixteenth century, with preference for the modern standard form 〈ai〉 in Cambridgeshire, Middlesex and the Northern counties but for 〈ei〉 elsewhere. The analysis further raises serious questions about the claim that standardisation of the spelling system was well underway by the end of the fifteenth century, clearly showing that there was no reduction in either intra- or inter-document variation during the period covered by the MELD corpus, 1399–1525.