DOCSLIB.ORG

Design of an Electronic Method for Describing Writing Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design of an Electronic Method for Describing Writing Systems This page intentionally left blank. Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Thesis Approval Sheet This thesis, entitled DESIGN OF AN ELECTRONIC METHOD FOR DESCRIBING WRITING SYSTEMS written by Eric Scott Albright and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics has been read and approved by the undersigned members of the faculty of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Gary F. Simons (Mentor) Stephen L. Walter Robert B. Reed May 11, 2001 DESIGN OF AN ELECTRONIC METHOD FOR DESCRIBING WRITING SYSTEMS By Eric Scott Albright Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics June, 2001 Dallas, TX Copyright © 2001 Eric Scott Albright All Rights Reserved THESIS DUPLICATION RELEASE I hereby authorize the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Library to duplicate this thesis when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed: (student signature) Refused: (student signature) ABSTRACT DESIGN OF AN ELECTRONIC METHOD FOR DESCRIBING WRITING SYSTEMS Eric Scott Albright, M.A. The Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, 2001 Supervising Professor: Gary F. Simons, Ph.D. Although descriptions of writing systems abound, the literature conspicuously lacks a reference work that describes the information that should be present for a complete account of the workings of a writing system. As a result, the quality of writing system descriptions suffers, as key information is either lacking or inaccessible. Writing system descriptions must describe the characteristics of each unit of writing together with its relationships to other pertinent units of writing and linguistics. Formal descriptions allow both machines and users to share the same source of information. This thesis seeks to determine the slots that should be filled by information obtained from the systematic analysis of writing systems. These slots are organized into a formal model of writing system descriptions that captures the semantics of writing systems. DEDICATION In memory of Kenneth L. Pike who sat on the front porch of a teenager and convinced him that there is nothing in the world like the study of linguistics—especially when your wife is also a linguist. To my linguist wife, who inspired, encouraged, and supported me during this study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not be what it is today without the help of my mentor, Dr. Gary F. Simons. His guidance, suggestions, and critique have been invaluable. The other members of my committee, Dr. Stephen L. Walter and Dr. Robert B. Reed, provided valuable editorial comments, which have greatly improved the quality of the final product. Martin Hosken was also a great help from the beginning, providing a sounding board for my ideas and pouring over drafts with numerous comments. May 11, 2001 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................1 2. Review of the literature..........................................................................................................5 2.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................5 2.2. Theory of writing systems...................................................................................................7 2.2.1. Applying emic principles to writing systems................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Informal contributions...................................................................................................12 2.2.3. Formal contributions......................................................................................................19 2.3. Descriptions of writing systems........................................................................................21 2.3.1. Collections of writing system descriptions.................................................................... 22 2.3.2. Writing system descriptions for individual languages...................................................25 2.4. Requirements for descriptions of writing systems............................................................ 27 2.5. Computational models......................................................................................................28 2.6. Summary...........................................................................................................................32 3. The problem......................................................................................................................... 33 3.1. Rationale for the study......................................................................................................33 3.2. Theoretical framework......................................................................................................35 3.3. Statement of the problem to be investigated.....................................................................35 3.4. Elements to be investigated.............................................................................................. 35 3.5. Limitations of the study....................................................................................................36 3.6. Definition of terms............................................................................................................ 38 3.7. Summary...........................................................................................................................41 4. Background information......................................................................................................42 4.1. How a computer treats text...............................................................................................42 4.2. XML in a nutshell............................................................................................................. 45 5. Design requirements............................................................................................................49 5.1. General requirements........................................................................................................49 5.2. Specific requirements for writing systems........................................................................52 6. Elements of writing systems................................................................................................53 6.1. Linguistic elements...........................................................................................................53 6.2. Graphs...............................................................................................................................58 6.3. Graphemes........................................................................................................................63 6.4. Writing system units.........................................................................................................68 6.5. Classes..............................................................................................................................75 6.6. Computational units..........................................................................................................78 6.6.1. Key codes....................................................................................................................... 78 6.6.2. Coded units....................................................................................................................80 viii 6.6.3. Glyphs............................................................................................................................80 7. Relationships between writing system elements..................................................................82 7.1. Potential relationships.......................................................................................................82 7.2. Mappings.......................................................................................................................... 87 7.3. Relations...........................................................................................................................98 7.4. Collating sequence............................................................................................................99 8. From formalism to publication.......................................................................................... 109 8.1. Elements needed for publication.....................................................................................109 8.1.1. Language...................................................................................................................... 109 8.1.2. Author.......................................................................................................................... 110 8.1.3. Prose sections...............................................................................................................110 8.2. Rendering the publication...............................................................................................113 8.3. Implementation of example .............................................................................................115 9. Conclusions........................................................................................................................116
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Typographic Contribution to Language
    Chapter 1: Typography and language: a selective literature review In this chapter I shall review some of the typographic literature to give an impression of the ‘story so far’. The review is necessarily selective, and leaves out a great deal of valid and useful information about particular typographic problems. The purpose is not to list all that is known, but rather to sketch a background to the theoretical problems addressed in this study. By ‘typographic literature’ I mean writings that have explicitly set out to discuss some aspect of typography, rather than writings on other topics that might conceivably be relevant to typography (although I introduce quite a number of these in later chapters). It is appropriate to start by looking at what typographers themselves have written, before considering the approaches taken by those psychologists and linguists who have addressed typographic issues. Typographers on typography British typography is still heavily influenced by ‘the great and the good’ book typographers of the Anglo-American pre-war tradition, (for example Rogers 1943, Morison 1951, and Updike 1937). While they contributed a great deal of intelligent and scholarly writing on typography, it was mostly of a historical or technical rather than a theoretical character. Above all, they were concerned with the revival and creation of beautiful and effective letterforms, and with the design of readable prose, mainly for books but also newspapers. We should remember that the concept of ‘typo- graphy’ as an abstract entity was relatively new, as was the profession of ‘typographer’. Chapter 1 • 11 On the written evidence, it seems that they did not view typography as part of language so much as a channel for its transmission.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Level and Low-Level Synthesis
    c01.qxd 1/29/05 15:24 Page 17 1 High-Level and Low-Level Synthesis 1.1 Differentiating Between Low-Level and High-Level Synthesis We need to differentiate between low- and high-level synthesis. Linguistics makes a broadly equivalent distinction in terms of human speech production: low-level synthesis corresponds roughly to phonetics and high-level synthesis corresponds roughly to phonology. There is some blurring between these two components, and we shall discuss the importance of this in due course (see Chapter 11 and Chapter 25). In linguistics, phonology is essentially about planning. It is here that the plan is put together for speaking utterances formulated by other parts of the linguistics, like semantics and syn- tax. These other areas are not concerned with speaking–their domain is how to arrive at phrases and sentences which appropriately reflect the meaning of what a person has to say. It is felt that it is only when these pre-speech phrases and sentences are arrived at that the business of planning how to speak them begins. One reason why we feel that there is somewhat of a break between sentences and planning how to speak them is that those same sentences might be channelled into a part of linguistics which would plan how to write them. Diagrammed this looks like: graphology writing plan semantics/syntax phrase/sentence phonology speaking plan The task of phonology is to formulate a speaking plan, whereas that of graphology is to formulate a writing plan. Notice that in either case we end up simply with a plan–not with writing or speech: that comes later.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTENT Unit I 2-18 Communication and Language INTRODUCTION to LINGUISTICS Major Linguists and Their Contribution
    1 CONTENT Unit I 2-18 Communication and Language INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS Major Linguists and their Contribution Unit II 19-27 Phonology of English and Phonetics Mechanism of Speech Production Organs of speech The Respiratory System The Phonatory System The Articulatory System The Air-stream Mechanism Unit III 29-43 Phonology of English and Phonetics (Continued) Description and Classification of Vowels and Consonants Description of Vowel Sounds Description of Pure Vowels in English Description of Dipthongs or Glides in English Occurrence of Vowel Sounds in English Description of Consonant Sounds Unit IV 44-56 STRESS AND INTONATION Word Accent/Stress Intonation Unit V 57-70 SOCIOLINUISTICS Definitions of Sociolinguistics Language Variation or Varieties of Language Dialects Sociolect Idiolect Register Language Contact: Pidgin and Creole 2 UNIT-I INTRODUCTION TO LINGUISTICS 1.0 1.1 Linguistics/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪks/ refers to the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics. WHAT IS LINGUISTICS? Linguistics is defined as the scientific study of language.It is the systematic study of the elements of language and the principles governing their combination and organization. Linguistics provides for a rigorous experimentation with the elements or aspects of language that are actually in use by the speech community. It is based on observation and the data collected thereby from the users of the language, a scientific analysis is made by the investigator and at the end of it he comes out with a satisfactory explanation relating to his field of study.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 2019, 2(2), 35-70
    Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 2019, 2(2), 35-70. ISSN (Online) 2620-0678 __________________________________________________________________ AIMS AND SCOPE The OJSL, as an international multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed online open access academic journal, publishes academic articles deal with different problems and topics in various areas of linguistics or which relates to linguistics (cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, generative linguistics, structural linguistics, historical linguistics, evolutionary linguistics, anthropological linguistics, contrastive linguistics, comparative linguistics, forensic linguistics, computational linguistics, history of linguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, functional theories of grammar, quantitative linguistics, constraint-based linguistics, etymology, phonology, morphology, morphophonology, syntax, lexis, semantics, phonetics, pragmatics, graphemics, graphetics, orthography, semiothics, cherology, origin of language, origin of speech, language acquisition, language assessment, language education, philosophy of language, sociology of language, psychology of language, etc.). The OJSL provides a platform for the manuscripts from different areas of research, which may rest on the full spectrum of established methodologies, including theoretical discussions and empirical investigations. The manuscripts may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. The OJSL is already indexed in Crossref (DOI), DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals),
    [Show full text]
  • Group Types, Style Markers, JP Clark-Bekederemo, Poetry
    ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 928-934, August 2011 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/tpls.1.8.928-934 Group Types as Style Markers in J. P. Clark- Bekederemo's Poetry Ebi Yeibo Department of English and literary Studies, Faculty of Arts, Niger Delta University, Bayelsa State, Nigeria Email: [email protected] Abstract—Group types or word groups constitute a veritable aspect of the syntactic structure of the English Language. In Hallidayan systemic linguistics, it is placed third on the hierarchy of five grammatical units in the language, viz: sentence, clause, phrase (word group), word and morpheme, in a descending order. A fundamental aspect of these grammatical units is their mutual inclusiveness i.e a lower unit is included in a higher unit. Thus, clauses, word groups, words, morpheme form the sentence, which is the highest in the hierarchy. In this study, we have examined the structural constituents of word groups and the textual functions they perform in J.P. Clark-Bekederemo’s poetry, using linguistics-stylistic parameters. The study demonstrates that, like other aspects or units of language, word groups have meaning-making potentials and play a crucial role in encoding the message of a text. It also throws light on the inexorable relationship between syntax and poetry, and adds to the ever-growing and divergent criticisms on African literature. Index Terms—group types, style markers, J.P. Clark-Bekederemo, poetry I. INTRODUCTION It was Todorov (1977) who averred that “literature is a verbal work of art”.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Stylistic Profiling
    15 Stylistic profiling DA YID CR YST AL 15.1 Background Fruitful analytic concepts have unpredictable futures. This paper reports on the possibilities and problems encountered in extending one such concept from its original domain, clinical linguistics, into an area of inquiry for which it was never intended, stylistics. The early 1970s saw the development at Reading University of an approach to the study of language disability which came to be called grammatical profiling. This was simply an extension of the everyday use of the term. In the same way that one can identify people by singling out their distinguishing features, and presenting them in a coherent manner, so it was thought possible to identify the most salient features of emerging grammatical structure in a language• handicapped person, and to present these also in a systematic and clinically illuminating way. The LARSP profile (Language Assess• ment, Remediation and Screening Procedure; Crystal, Fletcher and Garman 1976), as it eventually transpired, was a single A4 chart on which were located four main kinds of information. (1) Developmental information was given about the order of emergence of grammatical structures, presented vertically as a series of seven 'stages'. (2) Structural information was given about the range of connectivity, clause, phrase and word constructions thought to be relevant to diagnosis as well as to the other clinical tasks of screening, assess• ment and remediation; this was presented horizontally, using the notational conventions and analytical approach - with slight modifi• cations - of Quirk et al. (1972). (3) Discourse information was given about the nature of the gram• matical interaction between T (the teacher or therapist) and P (the 221 222 Exploration of corpora Stylistic profiling 223 patient' or pupil), such as the types of response to a question sources of input to statistical or computational procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Emojis: a Grapholinguistic Approach
    Emojis: A Grapholinguistic Approach Christa Dürscheid & Dimitrios Meletis Abstract. The present article stands at the interface of CMC research and grapholinguistics. After outlining which features are typical of the writing of pri­ vate text messages, the focus of the first part of the paper (Sections 2 and 3) lies on the use of emojis. Notably, emoji use is not—as is commonly done—analyzed under a pragmatic perspective, but grapholinguistically, at the graphetic and graphematic levels: emojis are conceptualized as visual shapes that may assume graphematic functions within a given writing system. In the second part (Sec­ tion 4), it is underlined that all variants of written digital communication (such as the use of emojis, but also all other characters) are made possible only due to the Unicode Consortium’s decisions; this, finally, is argued to have far­reaching consequences for the future of writing. 1. Preliminary Remarks In this paper, the use of emojis will be considered within a frame­ work known in the German­language research area as “Schriftlinguis­ tik” (grapholinguistics). As will be demonstrated, this term is not equiv­ alent to the terms graphemics or graphematics. In a much broader sense, grapholinguistics entails different aspects of writing (among them re­ search on scripts and writing systems, the history of writing, orthogra­ phy, graphematics, the acquisition of reading and writing, text design and text­image­relations, and differences between the written and spo­ ken modalities of language) (cf. Dürscheid 2016).1 This paper’s main Christa Dürscheid Department of German Studies, University of Zurich Schönberggasse 9, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland [email protected] Dimitrios Meletis Department of Linguistics, University of Graz Merangasse 70/III, 8010 Graz, Austria [email protected] 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook-Of-Semiotics.Pdf
    Page i Handbook of Semiotics Page ii Advances in Semiotics THOMAS A. SEBEOK, GENERAL EDITOR Page iii Handbook of Semiotics Winfried Nöth Indiana University Press Bloomington and Indianapolis Page iv First Paperback Edition 1995 This English­language edition is the enlarged and completely revised version of a work by Winfried Nöth originally published as Handbuch der Semiotik in 1985 by J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart. ©1990 by Winfried Nöth All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. The Association of American University Presses' Resolution on Permissions constitutes the only exception to this prohibition. Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging­in­Publication Data Nöth, Winfried. [Handbuch der Semiotik. English] Handbook of semiotics / Winfried Nöth. p. cm.—(Advances in semiotics) Enlarged translation of: Handbuch der Semiotik. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. ISBN 0­253­34120­5 1. Semiotics—handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Communication —Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title. II. Series. P99.N6513 1990 302.2—dc20 89­45199 ISBN 0­253­20959­5 (pbk.) CIP 4 5 6 00 99 98 Page v CONTENTS Preface ix Introduction 3 I. History and Classics of Modern Semiotics History of Semiotics 11 Peirce 39 Morris 48 Saussure 56 Hjelmslev 64 Jakobson 74 II. Sign and Meaning Sign 79 Meaning, Sense, and Reference 92 Semantics and Semiotics 103 Typology of Signs: Sign, Signal, Index 107 Symbol 115 Icon and Iconicity 121 Metaphor 128 Information 134 Page vi III.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 2020, 3(1), 1-46
    Open Journal for Studies in Linguistics, 2020, 3(1), 1-46. ISSN (Online) 2620-0678 __________________________________________________________________ AIMS AND SCOPE The OJSL, as an international multi-disciplinary peer-reviewed open access online academic journal, publishes academic articles deal with different problems and topics in various areas of linguistics or which relates to linguistics (cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, generative linguistics, structural linguistics, historical linguistics, evolutionary linguistics, anthropological linguistics, contrastive linguistics, comparative linguistics, forensic linguistics, computational linguistics, history of linguistics, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, functional theories of grammar, quantitative linguistics, constraint-based linguistics, etymology, phonology, morphology, morphophonology, syntax, lexis, semantics, phonetics, pragmatics, graphemics, graphetics, orthography, semiothics, cherology, origin of language, origin of speech, language acquisition, language assessment, language education, philosophy of language, sociology of language, psychology of language, etc.). The OJSL provides a platform for the manuscripts from different areas of research, which may rest on the full spectrum of established methodologies, including theoretical discussions and empirical investigations. The manuscripts may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. The OJSL is already indexed in Crossref (DOI), DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals),
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction 1 . The present volume in the context of preceding experiences The first volume of the series LautSchriftSprache – ScriptandSound deals with some of the topics presented during the third international LSS conference in Verona (www.linguistic- slab.org/lss_3), as well as with some new ones. In chronological terms, the papers in the present volume refer to writing systems ranging from the cuneiform systems of the II. millen- nium B.C. to present-day alphabets; in relation to the geographical coordinates, they extend from the Middle East, and the Caucasus to continental Europe and the Mediterranean Area . The first LSS conference in Zurich 2008 gave an overall introduction to the broad field of historical graphemics, summing up the results of many research programs on runes and other writing system of the Middle Ages. The second one, in Munich in 2010, focused on the (dis-)ambiguity of the grapheme and the depiction of sounds by characters in terms of a ‘perfect fit’, giving an overview on different writing systems. The third conference followed these traces in attempting to broaden the range of phenomena studied . A detailed list of topics is offered below. 1 . Metalanguage . A scrutiny of metalinguistic thinking based on the history of the underlying concepts (e g. grapheme, graph, character, letter, syllabogramm, phonogramm, logogramm, graphemics, graphetics, allograph, glyph, alloglyph etc .) and on their critical analysis . 2. Functions. The concept of a ‘perfect fit’ is further studied especially in the light of stud- ies on literacy, semiotics and the theory of communication. We tried to raise the following questions: How far can we speak of (im)perfection, once we consider the roles of senders, recipients and goals in their own context and in the context of our research? Can writing systems only be classified in relation to a glotto-phonemic – grapho-phonemic ‘perfect fit’ or also in relation to the concept of ‘key’ in communication? How relevant are considerations of specialized vs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Typographic Contribution to Language: 1987 Towards a Model of Typographic Genres and Their Underlying Structures
    The typographic contribution to language: 1987 towards a model of typographic genres and their underlying structures Robert Waller A note about this edition After completing my PhD thesis in 1987, I left the research career that had led up to it, and went into practice as an information designer, although some ideas from the thesis were published (Waller 1990, 1999). For the next twenty years, my main focus was commercial survival, and I gave it little thought until Judy Delin and John Bateman got in touch. Their AHRC-funded GeM project looked at the role of layout in written text, and took a genre-based approach. I was delighted when they used my model as a starting point for their own richer and more robust version (Allen, Bateman and Delin 1999, Delin, Bateman and Allen 2002). At their suggestion I created a digital version, by converting the original WriteNow file into an early version of Word, and upwards through newer Word versions. The GeM project made this available online, and I have also placed it on my own website in recent years. However, many illustrations were missing, and others were scanned from photocopies. Recently I imported the Word file into InDesign, and I located and re-scanned most of the images. What you have here is the original text, although pages numbers have inevitably changed, and I have also corrected a number of typos. One or two exemplar documents are not the originals but make the same points. I am mindful that this thesis is over twenty-five years old and was written before the internet, and in the very early days of electronic documents and hypertext.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysing British Sign Language Through the Lens of Systemic Functional Linguistics
    ANALYSING BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE THROUGH THE LENS OF SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS LUKE ANDREW RUDGE A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of the West of England, Bristol for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts, Creative Industries and Education, University of the West of England, Bristol March 2018 Material in this thesis is the author's with the exception of third party material where appropriate permissions have been obtained and attributed. In particular, videos presenting BSL in use (of which URLs are made available throughout this thesis) were created by and remain property of the author. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that no use of material may be made without proper acknowledgement. ii Acknowledgements The past three years can be summarised in one word: transition. Many things have changed during this time, including aspects of my environment and of myself. Yet, despite these changes, there are many people around me who have been a constant. It is here that I wish to thank them. To my supervisors, Jeanette Sakel and Anna Piasecki: thank you for guiding me and pushing me further; for being there when I needed you; for supporting the many opportunities I’ve had over the past three years; for being honest about the world of academia; and for providing direction while encouraging flexibility in my own decisions. To James Murphy: thank you for your honesty and your wit, your advice and your humour, your analytical perspectives and your ‘moderate cynicism’ (and for the lifts to and from Frenchay when the bus wasn’t an option!).
    [Show full text]