Questioning Allograph

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Be going to present at a private group, 12 Dec, 2012. Subjected to change without prior notice until read.

Text of Questioning Allograph

  • 1. Questioning AllographEvidence from Old HiraganaKazuhiro Okada Hokkaido UniversityTwiFULL SLiM #

2. Agenda Reviewing a theory of graphemeallographstructure in detail Examining the theory with the characterstructure of Old Hiragana Introducing grapheme class to clarify theresponsibilities for grapheme and allograph2 3. On Some Terms (Rogers ) An is a member of a grapheme,which is not contrastive to the otherallographs A is a contrastive unit in a writingsystem 3 4. On Some Terms (Rogers ) A is a system for graphicallyrepresenting the utterances of a language A is a general term for a writingsystem without regard for its structuralnature 4 5. What is Allograph? A and a are allographs of the grapheme A inthat replacing them does not alter themeaning of the word, as calm and cAlm,except oddness Note: Studies of Chinese characters treatallograph as relation of graphemes whichdescend from the same origin, despite adescription found in Rogers ()5 6. Allograph Class Allographs constitute classes over grapheme(Rogers, ) CAPITAL and minuscule Sans-serif and serif Roman, Bold and Italic Gill Sans and Avenir and so on 6 7. Grapheme and Phoneme Grapheme, as the name suggests, is denedparallel to phoneme, and allograph toallophone It is also referred to morpheme/allomorph,hereafter omitted Note that Rogers () does not insistthat writing system is completely parallelto phonology7 8. Grapheme andPhoneme Minimal pair plays a central role indetermining a phoneme, but similarity is alsoconvincing Conversely grapheme is solely determinedby usage, not by graphical likeness No outsiders would understand that and are of the same grapheme 8 9. A HoTEL Experiment To a certain extent, to know a writingsystem is to know allograph relations In the brain we process a written wordwithout regard to allograph variation Consequently nonetheless HoTEL andhotel are visually dierent we can readboth /htl/ (Dehaene, )9 10. A HoTEL Experiment Wait! Can we assume that both HoTEL andhotel suer same process? That both HoTEL and hotel go the sameprocess has little implication to the structureof grapheme For instance it is not obvious that either Hand h are unied then processed orseparately processed10 11. A HoTEL Experiment No one will argue against allograph itself Still there is room for an argument againstgraphemeallograph structure In other words, there is some doubt thatlinguistic contrast can fully capture astructure of a writing system 11 12. ContrastivenessCriterion Whether instances make a contrast is not sostraightforward in the case of writing system colour and color beber and vivir (Spanish, b and v are notdistinguished) Once contrast happened, it will guaranteethe other contrastiveness in writing system12 13. Contrastiveness Criterion Degree of dierence made with eachallograph class is not slight In Latin script, the case class seems the mostdierentiated class No other classes make a variation like Qand q, R and r13 14. ContrastivenessCriterion Supposed that both the case distinction andstylistic dierences make up equallyallograph classes, how to illustrate thespeciality of the case class? They do, actually, make a contrast, dontthey? There seems a need to elaborate thecriterion14 15. Contrastiveness inModern Latin Contemporary Latin writing system, which isnot authorised one, some distinguish voweli, u from consonantal j /j/, v /w/, theothers not (partial application is also found) Originally the writing system of Latin lacksthese vowel/consonant distinction whosedistributions are purely complimentary(Marotta, )15 16. Contrastiveness inModern Latin In the older writing system we neutralise thedistinction in writing and decode in reading Practically those subtle dierences easedistinctions over i, u and j, v, and let them beone time distinct graphemes, the other timeallographs 16 17. A Question Whats the contrastiveness in a writingsystem anyway?17 18. Old Hiragana Used from around to Has over kanas for core morae(adopted from Sproat, ) later fused into , but maintained ancientcategory (Frellesvig, )18 19. Old Hiragana Cursivised from Kanji, which was borrowedfrom Chinese writing system to representJapanese morae Not closed system Hereafter Kana refers to Old Hiragana19 20. Kanji to Kana When Kanji (hn z in Chinese) was utilisedto represent Japanese, there were mainlytwo ways: Borrowing its sound Utilising the rst sound of correspondenceJapanese word Both ways ignore what the word means20 21. Kanji to Kana Most kana borrowed the sound In borrowing some simplication took placeas Middle Chinese syllable structure is morecomplex than Old Japanese As a result large amount of homophonousapplication occurred /ka/ in Kojiki (): 21 22. Kanji to Kana In developing Kana the use by public servantgive a direction Nearly ignored so-called seidakudistinction Consulted few Kanji for a core mora Tended to write cursively 22 23. Contrast of Kana Two level contrast shall be distinguished Mora level contrast (kana category) , , , , Sub-mora level contrast /ha/: , , , 23 24. Contrast of Kana Mora level contrast is no doubt contrastive Sub-mora level contrast is said to make nocontrast Whether one writes or doesnot contribute to the representation of aword24 25. Contrast of Kana Non-contrastiveness does not immediatelylead to the conclusion that they areallographs There is a possibility of distinction as theyare mostly derived from dierent Kanji andalso a degree of cursiveness dierentiate theshape largely 25 26. Seidaku and Grapheme Sub-mora level contrast is not contrastiveon core morae However Seidaku contrast is not mentioned26 27. Seidaku and Grapheme As noted, Kana lacks distinction for seidaku Seidaku, which nowadays is a voiced/unvoiced contrast, was formerly contrastwith prenasalisation (supposed to havechanged gradually within Middle Japaneseperiod)27 28. Seidaku and Grapheme If mora level contrast is graphemedistinction in Kana, allographs, namely, sub-mora level contrast will be used freely overSeidaku If sub-mora level contrast make a contrast inusage of Seidaku even slightly, it shall includegrapheme distinction, or even questiongrapheme/allograph structure 28 29. A Case of f/b/pDistinction In Late Middle Japanese () current /h/ was // By a convention later transcribed as f // descended from /p/ in theenvironment of word-initial /w/ was for word-medial and nal 29 30. A Case of f/b/pDistinction Dakuon for /p/ can be reconstructed as/b/, which fused into /b/ no later thanLate Middle Japanese After losing its place, however, [p] seemedto have remained as an allophone for theenvironment of such as geminate consonantand onomatopia30 31. A Case of f/b/pDistinction f/b/p share characters in writing By moraic nature they are combined withvowel , , , , and correspond to /fa/,//, /fu/, /fe/ and /fo/, respectively Do they, in fact, make no contrast? 31 32. Jesuit Mission Press inJapan Jesuit Province of Japan printed Japanesetextbooks with movable type () Their publication includes in Latin script andin Japanese script Originally made by European hand, from they renewed their movable type ontheir own 32 33. Jesuit Mission Press inJapan They had used metal movable type, notwooden type, in order to recast samecharacter again and again It is important that in which character it iswritten is very clearer than hand-writtenmaterials 33 34. f/b/p Distinction in Missionary Press Early Japanese script publication (EJ) Late Japanese script publication (LJ) EJ lacks a digraph for p; both have adigraph for b, but often omitted Examining more than two characters per acore mora34 35. f/b/p Distinction inMissionary Press EJ (Okada, , modied) , , , , /wa/ /fa/ /ba/ part. ba /pa/ /wa/ part. wa /Cw-/ Total22 18 3 43123 4949 981 96 17223 2921010 35 36. f/b/p Distinction inMissionary Press EJ (Okada, , modied) , , , /e/, /e/ /fe/ /be/ /pe/ /e/ part. e total799889696 30130 1 131 4 428 2836 37. f/b/p Distinction inMissionary Press LJ (Shirai, , modied) , , , /wa/, /wa/ /fa/ /ba/ part. ba/pa/ /wa/ part. wa Total131060 21 81122645137208 1117171 137 38. f/b/p Distinction in Missionary Press Mora level distribution does not relatesimply to phoneme Rather each character has their own relation goes mostly to /ba/, or /wa/ goes to /fa/, /ba/, or /pa/ to /e/, to /fe/, /be/, or /pe/38 39. Allograph in MissionaryPress There was some unication before, bothlook alike: /fa/: A B /fe/: A B39 40. Allograph in MissionaryPress Attestation of B is too scarce ( times) Both A () and B () relate to/wa/ in the environment of word-medialand nal 40 41. Allograph in MissionaryPress Attestation of conrms that they did notreceive distinction implies that the dierence was so subtleas hardly to work independently Allograph in Kana has such a diculty indistinguishing them in shape and usage41 42. Theoretical Implication What we called mora level contrast so far israther weak category regarding core morae The fact that some sub-mora level contrastshave unique relation to phoneme showstheir independency in the writing system andmay name them graphemes42 43. Theoretical Implication In sub-mora level contrast, shape unlikenessis a source of distinction Unique sound relation in some of themshows every shape unlikeness has a potenceto have it Therefore sub-mora level contrast is agraphemic level dierence 43 44. Theoretical Implication Mora level contrast is more abstract thangrapheme To generalise it can be named asgrapheme class 44 45. Theoretical Implication Graphemes of Kana also gives a ground fordividing capital and minuscule into separategraphemes Introducing grapheme class makescontrastiveness criterion weaken thanRogers () This alternate intends to limit allograph tostylistic one45 46. Conclusion By introducing grapheme classresponsibilities for grapheme and allographbecome lighter Old Hiragana is