Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:43:36.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Writing systems: Not optimal, but good enough

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2012

Mark S. Seidenberg
Mark S. Seidenberg*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706. seidenberg@wisc.eduhttp://lcnl.wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Languages and writing systems result from satisfying multiple constraints related to learning, comprehension, production, and their biological bases. Orthographies are not optimal because these constraints often conflict, with further deviations due to accidents of history and geography. Things tend to even out because writing systems and the languages they represent exhibit systematic trade-offs between orthographic depth and morphological complexity.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 305 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968) The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. (2003) Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. T. & Bright, W. ed. (1996) The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. (1990) The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing 2:127–60.Google Scholar
Hoxhallari, L., van Daal, V. H. P. & Ellis, N. C. (2004) Learning to read words in Albanian: A skill easily acquired. Scientific Studies of Reading 8:153–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, D. L. & Tzeng, O. J. (1981) Orthographic variations and visual information processing. Psychological Bulletin 90:377–414.Google Scholar
Joshi, M. & Aaron, P. G. eds. (2006) Handbook of orthography and literacy. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Katz, L. & Frost, R. (1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning: Advances in Psychology, vol. 94, ed. Frost, R. & Katz, L., pp. 67–84. Elsevier/North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. (1992) Linguistic awareness and orthographic form. In: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, ed. Frost, R. & Katz, L., pp. 11–26. Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mirković, J., Seidenberg, M. S. & Joanisse, M. F. (2011) Probabilistic nature of inflectional structure: Insights from a highly inflected language. Cognitive Science 35:638–81.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Nelson, J., Liu, Y., Fiez, J. & Tan, L.-H. (2010) The neural bases of reading: Universals and writing system variations. In: The neural basis of reading, ed. Cornelissen, P., Kringelbach, M. & Hansen, P., pp. 147–72. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, C. J. & Devlin, J. T. (2011) The interactive account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15:246–53.Google Scholar
Ramsey, S. R. (1987) The languages of China. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (1992) Beyond orthographic depth in reading: Equitable division of labor. In: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, ed. Frost, R. & Katz, L., pp. 85–118. Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (2011) Reading in different writing systems: One architecture, multiple solutions. In: Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link, ed. McCardle, P., Miller, B., Lee, J. R. & Tzeng, O. J. L., pp. 146–68. Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. (2000) A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar