Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:07:00.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A bigger problem for ideography: The pervasiveness of linguistic structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Daniel Harbour
Daniel Harbour*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics (SLLF), Queen Mary University of London, London, UK d.harbour@qmul.ac.uk; www.qmul.ac.uk/sllf/linguistics/people/academic/profiles/harbour.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Writing systems display ubiquitous linguistic structure, from the recursive syntactic properties of their glyphs to the morphology/phonology of their combinatorics. This extends to Ancient Egyptian, Chinese, and Sumerian ideograms. Pure ideography requires switching this influence off. The pervasive linguistic tinge to the fabric of writing systems suggests that the chances of breaking what Morin terms language's lock-in effect are slim.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e244
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aikhenvald, A. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2017). Why only us: Language and evolution. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Fenlon, J., & Cormier, K. (2018). Sign language phonology. Oxford research encyclopaedia of linguistics. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-117Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. (2022). Amodal morphology: Applications to Brahmic scripts and Canadian Aboriginal syllabics. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. (in press). Segments and syllables in Thaana and Hangeul: A comparison of literate native-speaker inventions. Written Language and Literacy.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, O., & Grinevald, C. (2012). What are determinatives good for? In Grossman, E., Polis, S., & Winand, J. (Eds.), Lexical semantics in Ancient Egyptian (pp. 17–53). Widmaier.Google Scholar
Harbour, D. (2021). Grammar drives writing system evolution: Lessons from the birth of vowels. In Haralambous, Y. (Ed.), Grapholinguistics in the 21st century 2020 (pp. 201–221). Fluxus Editions.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagersma, A. H. (2010). A descriptive grammar of Sumerian (PhD thesis). Leiden University.Google Scholar
Lowe, J. J. (2015). The syntax of Sanskrit compounds. Historical Syntax, 91, e71–e115.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1994). Some graphotactic constraints. In Watt, W. C. (Ed.), Writing systems and cognition: Perspectives from psychology, physiology, linguistics, and semiotics (pp. 115–127). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meletis, D. (2020). The nature of writing: A theory of grapholinguistics. Fluxus Editions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. (2019). The grammar of Chinese characters: Productive knowledge of formal patterns in an orthographic system. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selz, G. J. (2017). To carry coals to Newcastle or observations concerning sign formation as an early concept in Mesopotamian “commentaries.” In Feliu, L., Karahashi, F., & Rubio, G. (Eds.), The first ninety years: A Sumerian celebration in honor of Miguel Civil (pp. 300–310). De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar