Rebecca Treiman and Brett Kessler
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- December 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199907977
- eISBN:
- 9780190228422
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199907977.003.0002
- Subject:
- Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Cognitive Psychology
This chapter discusses the types of writing systems that people have developed and the general principles behind how they work. It distinguishes between semasiography, which represents ideas ...
More
This chapter discusses the types of writing systems that people have developed and the general principles behind how they work. It distinguishes between semasiography, which represents ideas directly, and glottography, which represents speech. Among glottographic systems are logographies (which map onto speech at the level of morphemes), syllabaries (which represent syllables), and alphabets (which represent phonemes). Some writing systems represent phonetic features to some extent. Writing systems are typically mixed, in that they don’t follow one type of representation all of the time. The letter–sound correspondences of alphabetic writing systems are sometimes inconsistent and complex. One reason for this is that sounds change over time and spellings may not be reformed to keep up with these changes. Another reason is that an orthography may be deep. For example, a morpheme may be spelled in the same way across words even when its pronunciation is different.Less
This chapter discusses the types of writing systems that people have developed and the general principles behind how they work. It distinguishes between semasiography, which represents ideas directly, and glottography, which represents speech. Among glottographic systems are logographies (which map onto speech at the level of morphemes), syllabaries (which represent syllables), and alphabets (which represent phonemes). Some writing systems represent phonetic features to some extent. Writing systems are typically mixed, in that they don’t follow one type of representation all of the time. The letter–sound correspondences of alphabetic writing systems are sometimes inconsistent and complex. One reason for this is that sounds change over time and spellings may not be reformed to keep up with these changes. Another reason is that an orthography may be deep. For example, a morpheme may be spelled in the same way across words even when its pronunciation is different.
Rebecca Treiman and Brett Kessler
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- December 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199907977
- eISBN:
- 9780190228422
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199907977.003.0006
- Subject:
- Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Cognitive Psychology
From an early age, children learn that writing stands for something outside itself. However, it takes some time for children to learn that writing is glottographic: that it symbolizes language. ...
More
From an early age, children learn that writing stands for something outside itself. However, it takes some time for children to learn that writing is glottographic: that it symbolizes language. Children may instead think that writing is a first-order symbol that represents people and objects directly. Children realize early on that writing is not generally iconic: it does not look like what it stands for. More common is the idea that writing is an index: that it connects to its object through spatial or temporal contiguity. Evidence from studies using the moving word task supports this point. As children learn that the link between a piece of writing and its referent involves conventions that are shared by groups of people, and as they learn that a piece of writing is read the same way each time, they begin to grasp that writing is a second-order symbol. It gains its meaning because it represents language, which itself has meaning.Less
From an early age, children learn that writing stands for something outside itself. However, it takes some time for children to learn that writing is glottographic: that it symbolizes language. Children may instead think that writing is a first-order symbol that represents people and objects directly. Children realize early on that writing is not generally iconic: it does not look like what it stands for. More common is the idea that writing is an index: that it connects to its object through spatial or temporal contiguity. Evidence from studies using the moving word task supports this point. As children learn that the link between a piece of writing and its referent involves conventions that are shared by groups of people, and as they learn that a piece of writing is read the same way each time, they begin to grasp that writing is a second-order symbol. It gains its meaning because it represents language, which itself has meaning.
