Writing System - Functional Classification of Writing Systems

Functional Classification of Writing Systems

For lists of writing systems by type, see List of writing systems.

Several approaches have been taken to classify writing systems, the most common and basic one is a broad division into three categories: logographic, syllabic, and alphabetic (or segmental); however, all three may be found in any given writing system in varying proportions, often making it difficult to categorise a system uniquely. The term complex system is sometimes used to describe those where the admixture makes classification problematic. Modern linguists regard such approaches, including Diringer's

  • pictographic script
  • ideographic script
  • analytic transitional script
  • phonetic script
  • alphabetic script

as too simplistic, often considering the categories to be incomparable. Hill split writing into three major categories of linguistic analysis, one of which covers discourses and is not usually considered writing proper:

  • discourse system
    • iconic discourse system, e.g. Amerindian
    • conventional discourse system, e.g. Quipu
  • morphemic writing system, e.g. Egyptian, Sumerian, Maya, Chinese
  • phonemic writing system
    • partial phonemic writing system, e.g. Egyptian, Hebrew, Arabic
    • poly-phonemic writing system, e.g. Linear B, Kana, Cherokee
    • mono-phonemic writing system
      • phonemic writing system, e.g. Ancient Greek, Old English
      • morpho-phonemic writing system, e.g. German, Modern English

DeFrancis, criticizing Sampson's introduction of semasiographic writing and featural alphabets stresses the phonographic quality of writing proper

  • pictures
    • nonwriting
    • writing
      • rebus
        • syllabic systems
          • pure syllabic, e.g. Linear B, Yi, Kana, Cherokee
          • morpho-syllabic, e.g. Sumerian, Chinese, Mayan
          • consonantal
            • morpho-consonantal, e.g. Egyptian
            • pure consonantal, e.g. Phoenician
            • alphabetic
              • pure phonemic, e.g. Greek
              • morpho-phonemic, e.g. English

Faber categorizes phonographic writing by two levels, linearity and coding:

  • logographic, e.g. Chinese, Ancient Egyptian
  • phonographic
    • syllabically linear
      • syllabically coded, e.g. Kana, Akkadian
      • segmentally coded, e.g. Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Amharic, Devanagari
    • segmentally linear
      • complete (alphabet), e.g. Greco-Latin, Cyrillic
      • defective, e.g. Ugaritic, Phoenician, Aramaic, Old South Arabian, Old Hebrew
Classification by Daniels
Type Each symbol represents Example
Logographic morpheme Chinese characters
Syllabic syllable or mora Japanese kana
Alphabetic phoneme (consonant or vowel) Latin alphabet
Abugida phoneme (consonant+vowel) Indian Devanāgarī
Abjad phoneme (consonant) Arabic alphabet
Featural phonetic feature Korean hangul

Read more about this topic:  Writing System

Famous quotes containing the words functional, writing and/or systems:

    In short, the building becomes a theatrical demonstration of its functional ideal. In this romanticism, High-Tech architecture is, of course, no different in spirit—if totally different in form—from all the romantic architecture of the past.
    Dan Cruickshank (b. 1949)

    What is line? It is life. A line must live at each point along its course in such a way that the artist’s presence makes itself felt above that of the model.... With the writer, line takes precedence over form and content. It runs through the words he assembles. It strikes a continuous note unperceived by ear or eye. It is, in a way, the soul’s style, and if the line ceases to have a life of its own, if it only describes an arabesque, the soul is missing and the writing dies.
    Jean Cocteau (1889–1963)

    We have done scant justice to the reasonableness of cannibalism. There are in fact so many and such excellent motives possible to it that mankind has never been able to fit all of them into one universal scheme, and has accordingly contrived various diverse and contradictory systems the better to display its virtues.
    Ruth Benedict (1887–1948)