Article published In: Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 4:1 (2001) ► pp.1–14
What do “phonemic” writing systems represent?
Arabic Huruuf, Japanese Kana, and the Moraic Principle
Published online: 19 March 2001
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.4.1.02rat
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.4.1.02rat
The traditional classification of phonemic writing systems into three types — syllabaries, consonantal scripts, and alphabets — is based on a phonological theory which recognizes only the syllable and the segment as potential units of representation. It is argued here that an accurate typology of phonemic writing systems requires recognition of two further dimensions of phonological structure: phonological time, and the sonority hierarchy. The analysis focuses on two “typical” non-alphabetic systems — Japanese kana and the Arabic script, the former traditionally classed as a syllabary, the latter as a consonantal script. It is argued that the two scripts in fact share a common organizational principle, namely the iconic representation of phonological time.
Cited by (10)
Cited by ten other publications
Share, David L.
Osterkamp, Sven & Gordian Schreiber
2021. <Th>e ubi<qu>ity of polygra<ph>y and its significan<ce> for <th>e typology of <wr>iti<ng> systems. Written Language & Literacy 24:2 ► pp. 171 ff.
Osterkamp, Sven & Gordian Schreiber
2023. A proposal for a formalized, expandable approach to the taxonomy of writing systems. Written Language & Literacy 26:1 ► pp. 5 ff.
Buckley, Eugene
Saiegh-Haddad, Elinor
Saiegh-Haddad, Elinor & Roni Henkin-Roitfarb
Kurzon, Dennis
Bright, William
2005. Review of Rogers (2005): Writing systems: A linguistic approach. Written Language & Literacy 8:1 ► pp. 72 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. 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.
