DOCSLIB.ORG

Expanding the Scope of Orthographic Effects: Evidence from Phoneme Counting in First, Second, and Unfamiliar Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Expanding the scope of orthographic effects: Evidence from phoneme counting in first, second, and unfamiliar languages by Carolyn Pytlyk B.A., University of Saskatchewan, 1996 M.A., University of Victoria, 2007 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Linguistics ! Carolyn Pytlyk, 2012 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE Expanding the scope of orthographic effects: Evidence from phoneme counting in first, second, and unfamiliar languages by Carolyn Pytlyk B.A., University of Saskatchewan, 1996 M.A. University of Victoria, 2007 Supervisory Committee Dr Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Supervisor Dr John Archibald (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Departmental Member Dr Julia Rochtchina (Department of German and Russian Studies, University of Victoria) Outside Member Dr Patrick Bolger (Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of S. California) Additional Member ii ABSTRACT Supervisory Committee Dr Sonya Bird (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Supervisor Dr John Archibald (Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria) Departmental Member Dr Julia Rochtchina (Department of German and Russian Studies, University of Victoria) Outside Member Dr Patrick Bolger (Department of Spanish and Portuguese, University of S. California) Additional Member This research expands our understanding of the relationship between orthographic knowledge and phoneme perception by investigating how orthographic knowledge affects phoneme perception not only in the first language (L1) but also in the second language (L2), and an unfamiliar language (L0). Specifically, this research sought not only to confirm that L1 orthographic knowledge influences L1 phoneme perception, but also to determine if L1 orthographic knowledge influences L2 and L0 phoneme perception, particularly as it relates to native English speakers. Via a phoneme counting task, 52 participants were divided into two experimental groups—one with a Russian L0 and one with a Mandarin L0—and counted phonemes in words from their L1 (English) and L0. In addition, two subgroups of participants also counted phonemes in their L2 (either Russian or Mandarin). The stimuli for each language were organized along two parameters: 1) match (half with consistent letter-phoneme correspondences and half with inconsistent correspondences) and 2) homophony (half with cross-language homophonous counterparts and half without homophonous counterparts). The assumption iii here was that accuracy and RT differences would indicate an effect of orthographic knowledge on phoneme perception. Four-way repeated measures ANOVAs analysed the data along four independent factors: group, language, homophone, and match. Overall, the results support the hypotheses and indicate that L1 orthographic knowledge facilitates L1 and L0 phoneme perception when the words have consistent letter-phoneme correspondences but hinders L1 and L0 phoneme perception when the words have inconsistent correspondences. Similarly, the results indicate that L2 orthographic knowledge facilitates L2 phoneme perception with consistent words but hinders L2 phoneme perception with inconsistent words. On a more specific level, results indicate that not all letter-phoneme mismatches are equal in terms of their effect on phoneme perception, for example mismatches in which one letter represents two sounds (e.g., <x> = /ks/) influence perception more so than do mismatches in which one or more letters are silent (e.g. <sh> = /!/). Findings from this research support previous claims that orthographic and phonological information are co-activated in speech processing even in the absence of visual stimuli (e.g., Blau et al., 2008; Taft et al., 2008; Ziegler & Ferrand 1998), and that listeners are sensitive to orthographic information such that it may trigger unwanted interference when the orthographic and phonological systems provide conflicting information (e.g., Burnham, 2003; Treiman & Cassar, 1997). More importantly, findings show that orthographic effects are not limited to L1. First, phoneme perception in unfamiliar languages (L0) is also influenced by L1 orthography. Second, phoneme perception in L2 is influenced by L2 orthgraphic interference. In fact, L2 orthographic effects appear to override any potential L1 orthographic effects, suggesting orthographic iv effects are language-specific. Finally, the preliminary findings on the different types of letter-phoneme mismatches show that future research must tease apart the behaviours of different kinds of letter-phoneme inconsistencies. Based on the findings, this dissertation proposes the Bipartite Model of Orthographic Knowledge and Transfer. The model identifies two components within L1 orthographic knowledge: abstract and operational. The model predicts that abstract L1 orthographic knowledge (i.e., the general assumptions and principles about the function of orthography and its relationship to phonology) transfers into nonnative language processing regardless of whether the listeners/speakers are familiar with the nonnatiave language (e.g., Bassetti, 2006; Vokic, 2011). In contrast, the model predicts that operational knowledge (i.e., what letters map to what phonemes) transfers into the nonnative language processing in the absence of nonnative orthographic knowledge (i.e., the L0), but does not transfer in the presence of nonnative orthographic knowledge (i.e., the L2). Rather, L2-specific operational knowledge is created based partly on the transferred abstract knowledge. The research here contributes to the body of literature in four ways. First, the current research supports previous findings and claims regarding orthographic knowledge and native language speech processing. Second, the L2 findings provide insight into the relatively sparse—but growing—understanding of the relationship between L1 and L2 orthography and nonnative speech perception. Third, this research offers a unified (albeit preliminary) account of orthographic knowledge and previous findings by way of the Bipartite Model of Orthographic Knowledge and Transfer. v TABLE OF CONTENTS SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE ..................................................................................... ii ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... xiv DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ xvi Chapter One INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The Current Study .................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Research Questions ..................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Research Hypotheses ................................................................................... 5 1.3 Dissertation outline ................................................................................................ 9 Chapter Two BACKGROUND RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 11 2.1 Second Language Acquisition ............................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Early models: First language transfer ...................................................... 12 2.1.2 Current models: The L1 filter .................................................................... 14 2.2 Alphabetic Knowledge ........................................................................................ 17 2.2.1 Acquisition and development of phoneme awareness ............................... 18 2.2.2 Word/phoneme recognition and automatic co-activation ......................... 26 2.2.3 Letter-phoneme associations ..................................................................... 33 2.2.4 Misperception of phonemes ....................................................................... 35 2.2.5 Orthographic depth ................................................................................... 37 2.3 Summary and relevance to the current research .................................................. 42 Chapter Three ORTHOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ................................................................... 46 3.1 Writing Systems ................................................................................................... 46 3.1.1 Important definitions ................................................................................. 47 3.1.2 Creation of writing systems ......................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Phonetics and Phonology in Russian Unstressed Vowel Reduction: a Study in Hyperarticulation

    Phonetics and Phonology in Russian Unstressed Vowel Reduction: a Study in Hyperarticulation

    Phonetics and Phonology in Russian Unstressed Vowel Reduction: A Study in Hyperarticulation Jonathan Barnes Boston University (Short title: Hyperarticulating Russian Unstressed Vowels) Jonathan Barnes Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures Boston University 621 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 119 Boston, MA 02215 Tel: (617) 353-6222 Fax: (617) 353-4641 [email protected] Abstract: Unstressed vowel reduction figures centrally in recent literature on the phonetics-phonology interface, in part owing to the possibility of a causal relationship between a phonetic process, duration-dependent undershoot, and the phonological neutralizations observed in systems of unstressed vocalism. Of particular interest in this light has been Russian, traditionally described as exhibiting two distinct phonological reduction patterns, differing both in degree and distribution. This study uses hyperarticulation to investigate the relationship between phonetic duration and reduction in Russian, concluding that these two reduction patterns differ not in degree, but in the level of representation at which they apply. These results are shown to have important consequences not just for theories of vowel reduction, but for other problems in the phonetics-phonology interface as well, incomplete neutralization in particular. Introduction Unstressed vowel reduction has been a subject of intense interest in recent debate concerning the nature of the phonetics-phonology interface. This is the case at least in part due to the existence of two seemingly analogous processes bearing this name, one typically called phonetic, and the other phonological. Phonological unstressed vowel reduction is a phenomenon whereby a given language's full vowel inventory can be realized only in lexically stressed syllables, while in unstressed syllables some number of neutralizations of contrast take place, with the result that only a subset of the inventory is realized on the surface.
  • Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR 1 General Information

    Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR 1 General Information

    (internal doc. #: klgp220_101f_proposal_korean_lgr-25jan18-en_v103.doc) Proposal for a Korean Script Root Zone LGR LGR Version 1.0 Date: 2018-01-25 Document version: 1.03 Authors: Korean Script Generation Panel 1 General Information/ Overview/ Abstract The purpose of this document is to give an overview of the proposed Korean Script LGR in the XML format and the rationale behind the design decisions taken. It includes a discussion of relevant features of the script, the communities or languages using it, the process and methodology used and information on the contributors. The formal specification of the LGR can be found in the accompanying XML document below: • proposal-korean-lgr-25jan18-en.xml Labels for testing can be found in the accompanying text document below: • korean-test-labels-25jan18-en.txt In Section 3, we will see the background on Korean script (Hangul + Hanja) and principal language using it, i.e., Korean language. The overall development process and methodology will be reviewed in Section 4. The repertoire and variant groups in K-LGR will be discussed in Sections 5 and 6, respectively. In Section 7, Whole Label Evaluation Rules (WLE) will be described and then contributors for K-LGR are shown in Section 8. Several appendices are included with separate files. proposal-korean-lgr-25jan18-en 1 / 73 1/17 2 Script for which the LGR is proposed ISO 15924 Code: Kore ISO 15924 Key Number: 287 (= 286 + 500) ISO 15924 English Name: Korean (alias for Hangul + Han) Native name of the script: 한글 + 한자 Maximal Starting Repertoire (MSR) version: MSR-2 [241] Note.
  • Harmonizing the Orthography of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba.Pdf

    Harmonizing the Orthography of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba.Pdf

    NAME, DATE HERE GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA 39 CHAPTER THREE HARMONIZING THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF GĨKŨYŨ AND KĨKAMBA Angelina Nduku Kioko, Martin C. Njoroge and Peter Mburu Kuria INTRODUCTION The term orthography is derived from the Greek word ‘orthos’ which means ‘correct’, and ‘graphein’, which stands for ‘to write’ (Sampson, 1985). The orthography of a language describes or defines the set of symbols (graphemes and diacritics) used to represent the phonemic inventory of that language in the writing and the rules on how to write these symbols. According to Massamba (1986), a language takes a limited number of sounds from the central pool of speech sounds to form its phonetic inventory. In this chapter, orthography is used to refer to the system of symbols used in the writing system of Gĩkũyũ and Kĩkamba. There are three types of orthographies (Read, 1983: 143-152). The first is the ‘phonemic orthography’. In a ‘phonemic’ orthography there is a one-to-one correspondence between phonemes and graphemes. This type of orthography has a dedicated sequence of symbol or symbols for each phoneme. Examples of languages that have phonemic ortho graphies are Korean and Kiswahili. The second type is the ‘morpho-phonemic orthography’ which considers both the phonemic features and the underlying structure of words. In this case, words may be written in the same way despite differences in pronunciation. For example, the pronunciation of the plural marker in English {s} is conditioned by the phonetic environment in which it occurs, yet it is written with the same grapheme <s>. The plural forms ‘cats’ and ‘dogs’ are pronounced as [kӕts] and [dɒɡz] respectively although the two final sounds are written 40 THE HARMONIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF KENYAN LANGUAGES with the grapheme <s>.
  • 1 English Spelling and Pronunciation

    1 English Spelling and Pronunciation

    ISSN: 2456-8104 http://www.jrspelt.com Issue 5, Vol. 2, 2018 English Spelling and Pronunciation - A Brief Study Prof. V. Chandra Sekhar Rao ([email protected] ) Professor in English, SITECH, Hyderabad Abstract The present paper aims at the correlation between spelling and pronunciation of English words. English spelling is almost divorced from its pronunciation and there is no perfect guide how to 1 learn the pronunciation of the words. The letters of alphabet used are always inadequate to represent the sounds. English alphabet contains only 26 letters but the sounds 44. IPA symbols are needed to understand the intelligibility of the pronunciation and the spelling-designed. Learners of English language have to understand that words from other languages may be adopted without being adapted to the spelling system. Most of the letters of English alphabet produce multiple pronunciations. English Pronouncing Dictionary is needed for better understanding of the spelling and pronunciation. Keywords: Spelling and Pronunciation, Orthography, Intelligibility, Phonetic Symbols Introduction "If we know the sounds of a word (in English) we can't know how to spell it; if we know the ` spelling, we can't know how to pronounce it." (Otto Jespersen, philologist, Essentials of English Grammar, 1905, page 11). "English spelling is almost divorced from its pronunciation and forms hardly any guide as to how words should be pronounced." (Mont Follick, The Case for Spelling Reform, 1964, page 87). English, as a global language of communication, is spoken, written and used widely for many different purposes - international diplomatic relations, business, science and technology. It is also called the library language and medium of instructions in higher education - science and technology, computer and software engineering, medicine and law, pharmacy and nursing, commerce and management, fashion technology and so on.
  • Directions Active Employees (At 31.12

    Directions Active Employees (At 31.12

    Publishing details At a glance Sales and net income for the year in € m Level of internationality Visitors: 47.9 % Exhibitors: 73.4 % 500 50 400 40 Editors-in-chief Print production 300 30 Dominique Ewert Messe Frankfurt Medien Klaus Münster-Müller und Service GmbH 200 20 Publishing Services Annual Report 2014 100 10 Editors 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Markus Quint (production editor) Print l from Germany attending Messe Frankfurt events at the Frankfurt venue l Sales l Net income for the year l from outside Germany attending Messe Frankfurt events at the Frankfurt venue Antje Breuer-Seifi Druckhaus Becker GmbH Claudia Lehning-Berge Dieselstraße 9 2014 The Messe Frankfurt corporate group conceives, plans and hosts trade fairs and exhibitions in Germany and abroad. Sarah Stanzel 64372 Ober-Ramstadt Messe Frankfurt The parent company and its subsidiaries offer a well-coordinated service package for national and international Gabriele Wehrl Germany Annual Report customers, exhibitors and visitors. Responsibility for content in accordance Paper Corporate group 2 with the German press laws Cover: Hello Fat Matt 1.1 350 g/m in € m* 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Iris Jeglitza-Moshage Inside pages: Arctic the Volume 150 g/m2 Sales 448 467 537 545 554 Photographs Print run Personnel expenses 102 106 120 123 131 Pietro Sutera Photography (p. 3) 3,000 in two editions Depreciation, amortisation and write-downs 59 59 61 56 52 Rüdiger Nehmzow (p. 6–11, 36–39) (German and English) Earnings before taxes on income 42 34 36 49 47 Iwan Baan (p. 19) EBITDA 109 99 102 108 102 BRCK (p.
  • Handouts for Advanced Phonology: a Course Packet Steve Parker GIAL

    Handouts for Advanced Phonology: a Course Packet Steve Parker GIAL

    Handouts for Advanced Phonology: A Course Packet Steve Parker GIAL and SIL International Dallas, 2016 Copyright © 2016 by Steve Parker and other contributors Page 1 of 304 Preface This set of materials is designed to be used as handouts accompanying an advanced course in phonology, particularly at the graduate level. It is specifically intended to be used in conjunction with two textbooks: Phonology in generative grammar (Kenstowicz 1994), and Optimality theory (Kager 1999). However, this course packet could potentially also be adapted for use with other phonology textbooks. The materials included here have been developed by myself and others over many years, in conjunction with courses in phonology taught at SIL programs in North Dakota, Oregon, Dallas, and Norman, OK. Most recently I have used them at GIAL. Many of the special phonetic characters appearing in these materials use IPA fonts available as freeware from the SIL International website. Unless indicated to the contrary on specific individual handouts, all materials used in this packet are the copyright of Steve Parker. These documents are intended primarily for educational use. You may make copies of these works for research or instructional purposes (under fair use guidelines) free of charge and without further permission. However, republication or commercial use of these materials is expressly prohibited without my prior written consent. Steve Parker Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Dallas, 2016 Page 2 of 304 1 Table of contents: list of handouts included in this packet Day 1: Distinctive features — their definitions and uses -Pike’s premises for phonological analysis ......................................................................... 7 -Phonemics analysis flow chart ..........................................................................................
  • Seize the Ъ: Linguistic and Social Change in Russian Orthographic Reform Eugenia Sokolskaya

    Seize the Ъ: Linguistic and Social Change in Russian Orthographic Reform Eugenia Sokolskaya

    Seize the Ъ: Linguistic and Social Change in Russian Orthographic Reform Eugenia Sokolskaya It would be convenient for linguists and language students if the written form of any language were a neutral and direct representation of the sounds emitted during speech. Instead, writing systems tend to lag behind linguistic change, retaining old spellings or morphological features instead of faithfully representing a language's phonetics. For better or worse, sometimes the writing can even cause a feedback loop, causing speakers to hypercorrect in imitation of an archaic spelling. The written and spoken forms of a language exist in a complex and fluid relationship, influenced to a large extent by history, accident, misconception, and even politics.1 While in many language communities these two forms – if writing exists – are allowed to develop and influence each other in relative freedom, with some informal commentary, in some cases a willful political leader or group may step in to attempt to intentionally reform the writing system. Such reforms are a risky venture, liable to anger proponents of historic accuracy and adherence to tradition, as well as to render most if not all of the population temporarily illiterate. With such high stakes, it is no wonder that orthographic reforms are not often attempted in the course of a language's history. The Russian language has undergone two sharply defined orthographic reforms, formulated as official government policy. The first, which we will from here on call the Petrine reform, was initiated in 1710 by Peter the Great. It defined a print alphabet for secular use, distancing the writing from the Church with its South Slavic lithurgical language.
  • The Impact of Orthography on the Acquisition of L2 Phonology:1

    The Impact of Orthography on the Acquisition of L2 Phonology:1

    Coutsougera, The Impact of Orthography on the Acquisition of L2 Phonology:1 The impact of orthography on the acquisition of L2 phonology: inferring the wrong phonology from print Photini Coutsougera, University of Cyprus 1 The orthographic systems of English and Greek The aim of this study is to investigate how the deep orthography of English influences the acquisition of L2 English phonetics/phonology by L1 Greek learners, given that Greek has a shallow orthography. Greek and English deploy two fundamentally different orthographies. The Greek orthography, despite violating one-letter-to-one-phoneme correspondence, is shallow or transparent. This is because although the Greek orthographic system has a surplus of letters/digraphs for vowel sounds (e.g. sound /i/ is represented in six different ways in the orthography); each letter/digraph has one reading. There are very few other discrepancies between letters and sounds, which are nevertheless handled by specific, straightforward rules. As a result, there is only one possible way of reading a written form. The opposite, however, does not hold, i.e. a speaker of Greek cannot predict the spelling of a word when provided with the pronunciation. In contrast, as often cited in the literature, English has a deep or non transparent orthography since it allows for the same letter to represent more than one sound or for the same sound to be represented by more than one letter. Other discrepancies between letters and sounds - also well reported or even overstated in the literature - are of rather lesser importance (e.g. silent letters existing mainly for historical reasons etc).
  • Orthography Development for Creole Languages Decker, Ken

    Orthography Development for Creole Languages Decker, Ken

    University of Groningen Orthography Development for Creole Languages Decker, Ken IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2014 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Decker, K. (2014). Orthography Development for Creole Languages. [S.n.]. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 01-10-2021 ORTHOGRAPHY DEVELOPMENT FOR CREOLE LANGUAGES KENDALL DON DECKER The work in this thesis has been carried out under the auspices of SIL International® in collaboration with the National Kriol Council of Belize.
  • Orthographies in Early Modern Europe

    Orthographies in Early Modern Europe

    Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Edited by Susan Baddeley Anja Voeste De Gruyter Mouton An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 ThisISBN work 978-3-11-021808-4 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, ase-ISBN of February (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 LibraryISSN 0179-0986 of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ae-ISSN CIP catalog 0179-3256 record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-3-11-028812-4 e-ISBNBibliografische 978-3-11-028817-9 Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- fie;This detaillierte work is licensed bibliografische under the DatenCreative sind Commons im Internet Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs über 3.0 License, Libraryhttp://dnb.dnb.deas of February of Congress 23, 2017.abrufbar.
  • Zive Naj Vsi Narodi K I Hrepene Docakat Dan D E Koder Sonce Hodi P Repir I Z Sveta Bo Pregnan D E Rojak P Rost Bo Vsak N E Vrag

    Zive Naj Vsi Narodi K I Hrepene Docakat Dan D E Koder Sonce Hodi P Repir I Z Sveta Bo Pregnan D E Rojak P Rost Bo Vsak N E Vrag

    12. letno srečanje Združenja za slovansko jezikoslovje Povzetki prispevkov 12th Slavic Linguistics Society Annual Meeting Book of Abstracts XII ежегодная конференция Общества славянского языкознания Тезисы докладов Ljubljana, 21.–24. 9. 2017 v / / Zive naj vsi narodi / / / K i hrepene docakatv dan , / / / D e koder sonce hodi , / / P repir/ iz sveta bo/ pregnan , / D e rojak / P rost bo vsak , / / / N e vrag, le sosed bo mejak. 12. letno srečanje Združenja za slovansko jezikoslovje: Povzetki prispevkov 12th Slavic Linguistics Society Annual Meeting: Book of Abstracts XII ежегодная конференция Общества славянского языкознания: Тезисы докладов ISBN: 978-961-05-0027-8 Urednika / Editors / Редакторы: Luka Repanšek, Matej Šekli Recenzenti / Peer-reviewers / Рецензенты: Aleksandra Derganc, Marko Hladnik, Gašper Ilc, Zenaida Karavdić, Simona Kranjc, Domen Krvina, Nina Ledinek, Frančiška Lipovšek, Franc Marušič, Tatjana Marvin, Petra Mišmaš, Matic Pavlič, Анастасия Ильинична Плотникова / Anastasiia Plotnikova, Luka Repanšek, Михаил Николаевич Саенко / Mikhail Saenko, Дмитрий Владимирович Сичинава / Dmitri Sitchinava, Vera Smole, Mojca Smolej, Marko Snoj, Petra Stankovska, Andrej Stopar, Saška Štumberger, Hotimir Tivadar, Mitja Trojar, Mladen Uhlik, Mojca Žagar Karer, Rok Žaucer, Andreja Žele, Sašo Živanović Vodja konference / Conference leadership / Руководитель конференции: Matej Šekli Organizacijski odbor konference / Conference board / Оргкомитет конференции: Branka Kalenić Ramšak, Domen Krvina, Alenka Lap, Oto Luthar, Tatjana Marvin, Mojca
  • Written Text

    Written Text

    1 Swimming against the current Text of a “keynote address” for video delivery at the first World Congress of Korean Language, October 2020 신사 숙녀 여러분: 만나서 반갑습니다 ! I want to talk today (in English, I’m afraid) about what I believe is a consistent tendency in the historical evolution of scripts around the world. I shan’t call it a “linguistic universal”, because I don’t believe in Chomskyan biological universals of language. Languages are purely cultural products, and like other cultural products their development isn’t controlled by scientific laws. But the tendency I have in mind does seem to hold quite widely, and it can be explained, in terms of the demographic changes we associate with modernity. The reason why this topic may make a suitable opening for your conference is that the one unexplained exception to the tendency which I know of is in fact Korean script. But I’ll come to the case of Korean after I’ve spent some time discussing the tendency more generally. What I believe to be generally true, as I discuss in my book The Linguistics Delusion, is that in newly literate societies writing tends to be a matter of phonetic transcription – if the script is alphabetic, a newly-devised orthography will conform pretty closely to the principle “one sound, one symbol”; while as the script matures and the society modernizes, the orthography tends to evolve in the direction of what I’ll call “contrastiveness”, in the sense that the meaningful units of the language have consistent written shapes which are well-differentiated from the written forms of other meaningful units.