Article published in:
Understanding Writing Systems
Edited by Merijn Beeksma and Martin Neef
[Written Language & Literacy 21:1] 2018
► pp. 52–88

What is natural in writing?

Prolegomena to a Natural Grapholinguistics

| University of Graz
Naturalness Theory (NT) is founded on the notion of naturalness and claims that when a linguistic phenomenon can be processed by humans with little effort, both sensomotorically and cognitively, it is deemed more natural compared to other, more complex phenomena. Drawing on evidence such as language change, language acquisition, and language disorders, various parameters of naturalness (e.g., biuniqueness, constructional iconicity) have been postulated, which focus on the phonological and morphological subsystems of language. This paper offers an outline of how naturalness can be adapted to grapholinguistic phenomena. Comparative graphematics (cf. Weingarten 2011), extended to comparative grapholinguistics, is assessed as a method that can be used to reveal naturalness parameters which apply to both material (graphetic) and linguistic (graphematic) aspects of writing. The reduction of extrinsic symmetry across various scripts will be discussed as an example. By integrating these preliminary theoretical ideas into the framework of NT, it is demonstrated that so-called Natural Grapholinguistics could offer promising new insights as well as a tertium comparationis method for future comparative analyses of scripts and writing systems.
Keywords: grapholinguistics, writing system, script, naturalness, naturalness theory, comparative grapholinguistics, cross-linguistic studies, natural grapholinguistics
Published online: 02 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00010.mel
References

References

Anbar, Ada
(1986) Reading acquisition of preschool children without systematic instruction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1: 69–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N.
(1974) Naturalness in historical reconstruction and changes that are not natural. In Anthony Bruck (ed.), Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology, April 18, 1974, 13–20. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
(1984) The concept of balance and linguistic naturalness. Language Sciences 6.2: 229–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Balestra, Miriam, Annalen Appelt & Martin Neef
(2014) Systematische Beschränkungen für Schreibungen im grammatischen Wortschatz des Deutschen: der Konsonant [f]. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33.2: 129–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Antonio
(2011) Alphabetic vs. non-alphabetic writing: linguistic fit and natural tendencies. Rivista di Linguistica 23.2: 127–159.Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian
(2016) Graphematische Variation. In Birgit Mesch & Christina Noack (eds.), System, Norm und Gebrauch – drei Seiten derselben Medaille? Orthographische Kompetenz und Performanz zwischen System, Norm und Empirie, 9–23. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Bertacca, Antonio
(2002) Description and explanation of language change. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Jarosław Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics, 1–23. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Bigozzi, Luca, Christian Tarchi & Giuliana Pinto
(2016) Spelling across tasks and levels of language in a transparent orthography. PLoS ONE 11.9: e0163033. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birnbacher, Dieter
(2014) Naturalness: is the ‘natural’ preferable to the ‘artificial’? Transl. by David Carus. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Bittner, Andreas
(1988) Is anything ‘more natural’? Considerations on establishing a hierarchy of naturalness principles (NP). Linguistische Studien A 188: 23–35.Google Scholar
Brosh, Hezi
(2015) Arabic spelling: errors, perceptions, and strategies. Foreign Language Annals 48.4: 584–603. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, Michael
(2014) Non-linguistic factors in orthographies. In Michael Cahill & Keren Rice (eds.), Developing orthographies for unwritten languages, 9–25. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Changizi, Mark A. & Shinsuke Shimojo
(2005) Character complexity and redundancy in writing systems over human history. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 272: 267–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Changizi, Mark A., Qiong Zhang, Hao Ye & Shinsuke Shimojo
(2006) The structures of letters and symbols throughout human history are selected to match those found in objects in natural scenes. The American Naturalist 167.5: E117–E139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
(1968) Language and symbolic systems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Chen, Ping
(2004) Modern Chinese: history and sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian & Benedetta Bassetti
(2005) An introduction to researching second language writing systems. In Vivian Cook & Benedetta Bassetti (eds.), Second language writing systems, 1–67. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian
(1996) The Blackwell encyclopedia of writing systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2009) Evaluating merit – the evolution of writing reconsidered. Writing Systems Research 1.1: 5–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocco Galèas, Grazia
(1998) The parameters of Natural Morphology. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T.
(1990) Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110.4: 727–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) On beyond alphabets. Written Language and Literacy 9.1: 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Grammatology. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 25–45. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Two notes on terminology. Written Language and Literacy 12.2: 277–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Writing systems. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The handbook of linguistics, 2nd edition, 75–94. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) An exploration of writing. Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
(1967) De la grammatologie. Paris: Ed. de Minuit.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe
(1979) The study of Natural Phonology. In Daniel A. Dinnsen & Stephen R. Anderson (eds.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Hypotheses of Natural Phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45.1: 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
(1980) Naturalness as a principle in genetic and typological linguistics: introduction. In Torben Thrane, Vibeke Winge, Lachlan Mackenzie, Una Canger & Niels Ege (eds.), Typology and genetics of language, 75–91. Copenhagen: Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
(1988) Zur Bedeutung der Sprachtypologie in der Natürlichen Morphologie. In Jens Lüdtke (ed.), Energeia und Ergon, Vol. 3, 199–208. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1989) Semiotische Parameter einer textlinguistischen Natürlichkeitstheorie. Wien: Verlag d. Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
(1999a) What is natural in Natural Morphology (NM)? Prague Linguistic Circle Papers 3: 135–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1999b) On a semiotic theory of preferences in language. Peirce Seminar Papers 4: 389–415.Google Scholar
(2000) Naturalness. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan, Wolfgang Kesselheim & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphology: an international handbook of inflection and word-formation, Vol. 1, 288–296. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Natural Morphology. In E. K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 539–540. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel
(1987) Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gary Libben & Katharina Korecky-Kröll
(2014) Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 181–196. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa
(2016) Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. 5th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna
(2002) Challenges for Natural Linguistics in the 21st century: a personal view. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Jarosław Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics, 103–128. München: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad
(2007) Sprache und sprachliches Handeln. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fedorova, Liudmila L.
(2013) The development of graphic representation in abugida writing: the akshara’s grammar. Lingua Posnaniensis 55.2: 49–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua
(1977) Advances in the creation and revision of writing systems. The Hague: Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna & Franziska Buchmann
(2009) Die Längenhierarchie: Zum Bau der graphematischen Silbe. Linguistische Berichte 218: 127–155.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace Jay
(1969) A Study of Writing. 2nd edition (3rd impression). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giannouli, Vaitsa
(2013) Visual symmetry perception. Encephalos 50: 31–42.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E.
(2017) Towards a typology of phonemic scripts. Writing Systems Research 9.1: 14–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, Noël
(1995) Written expression disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günther, Hartmut
(1988) Schriftliche Sprache: Strukturen geschriebener Wörter und ihre Verarbeitung beim Lesen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
[1977] (2010) Ideas about language. In Jonathan J. Webster & M. A. K. Halliday (eds.), On language and linguistics, 92–112. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
(2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1: 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
(1951) Review of Nationalism and Language Reform in China, by J. DeFrancis. Language 27.3: 439–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard
(1988) Über Aspiration: Ein Kapitel aus der natürlichen Phonologie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
(1998) Optimalität und Natürlichkeit. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 13: 115–139.Google Scholar
(2006) Natural Phonology. In E. K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 541–543. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard & Geoffrey Nathan
(1996) Naturalness in phonology. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49.3: 231–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
(1941) Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kao, Henry S. R., Gerard P. Van Galen & Rumjahn Hoosain
(eds.) (1986) Graphonomics: contemporary research in handwriting. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Katz, Leonard & Ram Frost
(1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: the orthographic depth hypothesis. In Ram Frost & Leonard Katz (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, 67–84. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi
(2014) Sprachwandel: von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. 4th edition. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
Kohrt, Manfred
(1987) Theoretische Aspekte der deutschen Orthographie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
(2008) A brief note on diacritics. Written Language and Literacy 11.1: 90–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lachmann, Thomas & Thomas Geyer
(2003) Letter reversals in dyslexia: is the case really closed? A critical review and conclusions. Psychology Science 45: 50–72.Google Scholar
Law, Nancy, W. W. Ki, A. L. S. Chung, P. Y. Ko & H. C. Lam
(1998) Children’s stroke sequence errors in writing Chinese characters. Reading and writing 10: 267–292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey
(2000) Turkish Grammar. 2nd edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Luschützky, Hans C.
(2006) Ältere Entwicklungen in der natürlichen Morphologie. In Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences, Vol. 3, 2340–2351. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, Ignatius G.
(1985) Did orthographies evolve? Remedial and Special Education 6.6: 18–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
(1981) Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
(1987) System-independent morphological naturalness. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (1987), 25–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi, Günther Fliedl & Christian Winkler
(1998) Lexikon der Natürlichkeitstheoretischen Syntax und Morphosyntax. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar
McCardle, Peggy, Brett Miller, Jun Ren Lee & Ovid J. L. Tzeng
(2011) Dyslexia across languages: orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios
(2015) Graphetik: Form und Materialität von Schrift. Glückstadt: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, Tadao
(2007) The evolution of writing systems: against the Gelbian hypothesis. In Akito Sakurai, Kôiti Hasida & Katsumi Nitta (eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence, 345–356. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munske, Horst H.
(1994) Ist eine „natürliche“ Graphematik möglich? In Otmar Werner (ed.), Probleme der Graphie, 9–24. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin
(2005) Die Graphematik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Writing systems as modular objects: proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics. Open Linguistics 1: 708–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin, Said Sahel & Rüdiger Weingarten
(eds.) (2012ff.) Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nerius, Dieter
(ed.) (2007) Deutsche Orthographie. 4th edition. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Nerius, Dieter & Gerhard Augst
(eds.) (1988) Probleme der geschriebenen Sprache. Beiträge zur Schriftlinguistik auf dem XIV. internationalen Linguistenkongreß 1987 in Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.Google Scholar
Olson, David R.
(1996) The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Orešnik, Janez
(2004) Naturalness in (morpho)syntax: English examples. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti.Google Scholar
Pegado, Filipe, Kimihiro Nakamura, Laurent Cohen & Stanislas Dehaene
(2011) Breaking the symmetry: mirror discrimination for single letters but not for pictures in the Visual Word Form Area. NeuroImage 55: 742–749.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reitz, Jela
(1994) Erworbene Schriftsprachstörungen: eine neurolinguistische Aufgaben sammlung zur Erfassung schriftsprachlicher Leistungen. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rezec, Oliver
(2009) Zur Struktur des deutschen Schriftsystems. PhD Dissertation Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.Google Scholar
(2013) Ein differenzierteres Strukturmodell des deutschen Schriftsystems. Linguistische Berichte 234: 227–254.Google Scholar
Rogers, Henry
(1995) Optimal orthographies. In Insup Taylor & David R. Olson, (eds.), Scripts and literacy: reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters, 31–43. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Writing systems: a linguistic approach. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard
(2012) Some principles and patterns of script change. In Stephen D. Houston (ed.), The shape of script: how and why writing systems change, 119–133. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
[1985] (2015) Writing systems: a linguistic introduction. 2nd edition. Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar
Saniei, Andisheh
(2011) Who is an ideal native speaker?! International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research 26: 74–78.Google Scholar
Schmid, Stephan
(1997) The Naturalness Differential Hypothesis: cross-linguistic influence and universal preferences in interlanguage phonology and morphology. Folia Linguistica 31.3–4: 331–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Gordian
submitted). Visual politeness: remarks on cursivization as found in pre-modern Japanese handbooks on letter writing. In The idea of writing, vol. 4. Leiden: Brill.
Sebba, Mark
(2009) Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research. Writing Systems Research 1.1: 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Share, David L.
(2008) On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of over-reliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychologial Bulletin 134.4: 584–616. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Alphabetism in reading science. Frontiers in psychology 5.752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Share, David L. & Peter T. Daniels
(2016) Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets and orthographic depth: Reflections on Rimzhim, Katz and Fowler (2014). Writing Systems Research 8.1: 17–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, William A.
(ed.) (1963) Orthography studies: articles on new writing systems. London: United Bible Societies.Google Scholar
Smith, Janet S.
(Shibamoto) (1996) Japanese Writing. In Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.), The world’s writing systems, 209–217. New York, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stampe, David
(1973) A dissertation on Natural Phonology. Bloomington: IULC.Google Scholar
Unseth, Peter
(2005) Sociolinguistic parallels between choosing scripts and languages. Written Language and Literacy 8.1: 19–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Venezky, Richard L.
(1977) Principles for the design of practical writing systems. In Joshua Fishman (ed.) (1977), 37–54.Google Scholar
(2004) In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language and Literacy 7.2: 139–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watt, W. C.
(2015) What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? VII: Sleight of hand. Semiotica 207: 65–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weingarten, Rüdiger
(2011) Comparative graphematics. Written Language and Literacy 14.1: 12–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wiebelt, Alexandra
(2003) Die Entwicklung der Symmetrie in der Schrift: Wie Objektkonstanz die Genese von Buchstabenformen beeinflusst. Linguistische Berichte 195: 295–323.Google Scholar
(2004) Do symmetrical letter pairs affect readability? Written Language and Literacy 7.2: 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U.
(1984) Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
(1987) System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel (1987), 59–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Natural Morphology. In R. E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2590–2598. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Natürlicher Grammatischer Wandel, ‚unsichtbare Hand‘ und Sprachökonomie – Wollen wir wirklich so Grundverschiedenes? In Thomas Birkmann, Heinz Klingenberg, Damaris Nübling & Elke Ronneberger-Sibold (eds.), Vergleichende Germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik: Festschrift für Otmar Werner, 295–308. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yan, Zhenjiang
(2002) Der geheime Phono- und Eurozentrismus des Redens von Schrift. In Erika Greber, Konrad Ehlich & Jan-Dirk Müller (eds.), Materialität und Medialität von Schrift, 151–164. Bielefeld: Aisthesis.Google Scholar
Zhao, Shouhui & Richard B. Baldauf Jr.
(2008) Planning Chinese characters: reaction, evolution or revolution? Dordrecht: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Iyengar, Arvind
2021. A diachronic analysis of Sindhi multiscriptality. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 7:2 ► pp. 207 ff. Crossref logo
Meletis, Dimitrios
2019. The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing. Writing Systems Research 11:1 ► pp. 26 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.