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:

    Indigenous to Minnesota, and almost completely ignored by its people, are the stark, unornamented, functional clusters of concrete—Minnesota’s grain elevators. These may be said to express unconsciously all the principles of modernism, being built for use only, with little regard for the tenets of esthetic design.
    —Federal Writers’ Project Of The Wor, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)

    ...Often the accurate answer to a usage question begins, “It depends.” And what it depends on most often is where you are, who you are, who your listeners or readers are, and what your purpose in speaking or writing is.
    Kenneth G. Wilson (b. 1923)

    Not out of those, on whom systems of education have exhausted their culture, comes the helpful giant to destroy the old or to build the new, but out of unhandselled savage nature, out of terrible Druids and Berserkirs, come at last Alfred and Shakespeare.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)