Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-27T13:41:40.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional ideographies are composite semiotic systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2023

Stephen Chrisomalis
Stephen Chrisomalis*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA chrisomalis@wayne.edu; https://clasprofiles.wayne.edu/profile/dz6179
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All sufficiently large functional notations (ideographic or otherwise) are composites of discrete, structured elements (e.g., phonemes, morphemes, numerals). We must consider not only the modality but also the structure of the existing, workable ideographic/semasiographic systems we know (e.g., musical and numerical notation) to establish the cognitive limitations militating against humans memorizing and standardizing domain-general ideographies that would parallel written language.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e238
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

Basso, K. H., & Anderson, N. (1973). A Western Apache writing system: The symbols of Silas John. Science (New York, NY), 180(4090), 1013–1022.10.1126/science.180.4090.1013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brentari, D. (2019). Sign language phonology. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316286401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press.10.1017/S0140525X00001515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrisomalis, S. (2018). The writing of numbers. Recounting and recomposing numerical notations. Terrain. Anthropologie & Sciences Humaines, 70. https://journals.openedition.org/terrain/17506.Google Scholar
Chrisomalis, S. (2020). Reckonings: Numerals, cognition, and history. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/13381.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, J. (1986). The Chinese language: Fact and fantasy. University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Edgerton, W. F. (1941). Ideograms in English writing. Language, 17(2), 148–150.10.2307/409622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, P. (2018). The invention, transmission and evolution of writing: Insights from the new scripts of West Africa. In Ferrara, S. & Valério, M. (Eds.), Paths into script formation in the ancient Mediterranean (pp. 189–209). Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici.Google Scholar
Knowlson, J. (1975). Universal language schemes in England and France 1600–1800. University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781487589400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, R., Jonathan, P., & Ziman, P. (2010). Pictish symbols revealed as a written language through application of Shannon entropy. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 466(2121), 2545–2560.10.1098/rspa.2010.0041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B. G. (1998). Writing systems: A case study in cultural evolution. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 31(1), 39–62.10.1080/00293652.1998.9965618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valério, M., & Ferrara, S. (2019). Rebus and acrophony in invented writing. Writing Systems Research, 11(1), 66–93.10.1080/17586801.2020.1724239CrossRefGoogle Scholar