Of Glyphs and Glottography 1. The earliest writing - Archimedes

29 Pages·2006·0.65 MB·English

DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
Of Glyphs and Glottography
*
MalcolmD.Hyman
MaxPlanckInstitutefortheHistoryofScience
Boltzmannstraße22,D-14195Berlin,Germany
Abstract:
Thetermglottography isfamiliarfromPulgram(1976)andisequivalenttoGelb’s(1952)
phonography.Thetermisproblematic, sinceitisrarelymadeclearhowawritingsystemis
heldtorepresentaspokenlanguage,andhowglottographicsystemsexistalongsidenon-
glottographicones.Thispaperexaminesglottographyfromtheparticularperspectiveof
archaicorproto-cuneiform(firstattestedca.3300B.C.E.).Afterclearingupsomefundamental
confusions,weofferfoursymptomsofglottographicwriting.Wethenconsidertherelation
betweenglottographicandnon-glottographicwriting,associatetheformerwiththeactof
readingandthelatterwithverbalizing,andconcludebysuggestingthatglottographyisbest
viewedasasinglesubsystem ofwrittenlanguage.
Keywords:proto-writing;proto-cuneiform; glottography;typologyof writingsystems
Thiswritin’iswrotenrotten,ifyouhappento askme.
—Popeye,in‘PopeyetheSailorMeetsAliBaba’sFortyThieves’(1937)
1. The earliest writing: an introduction
WritingarosearoundtheendofthefourthmillenniumB.C.E.(ca.3300)insouthernBabylon
1
(modernIraq). Theearliestwritten documentsareclaytabletsimpressed withnumerical
notationsandsealingsthatlikelyindicatedinstitutionalcontexts.Byca.3200asystem
knownasarchaiccuneiformorproto-cuneiformhaddeveloped;thissystemistheprecursorto
thecuneiformwritingthatdevelopedlaterasavehicle fortheexpressionofnumeroustexts
inSumerian,Akkadian,andvariousotherlanguages.Anothergroupofarchaicdocuments
fromaslightlylaterdate(ca. 3100–2900)comesfromearlysettlementsin(contemporary)
2
Iran; thewritingofthesetabletsisinanumberofrespectssimilartoproto-cuneiform,butit
3
neverthelessrepresentsadistinctsystem.
*Tel.:[phone];fax:[phone]; email:[email protected]
1
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
Thesearchaic textsbelongtoarestrictedrangeofTextsorten,beingconstitutedalmost
exclusivelyofadministrativedocuments(recordsassociatedwiththeproductionand
transferofagriculturalcommoditiesandmanufacturedgoods;recordsofthedisbursement
offoodstuffstoworkers;etc.)andso-called‘lexicallists’ (thematicallyarranged
enumerationsofdesignationsforsuchcategoriesasprofessions,places,animals,plants,and
4
manufactureditems). Lexicallistsapparentlyserved thepurposeoftransmittingthe
conventionsofthewritingsystemandlaterevolvedintothefirstbilingual(Sumerian-
Akkadian)dictionariesinthesecondandfirstmillennia.
Althoughsignificantprogresshasbeenmadeinthedeciphermentandunderstandingof
thesetextssincetheirpublication(startinginthefirstpartofthetwentiethcentury),crucial
aspectsoftheirnatureremaincontroversial.Whilesomescholarshaveregardedarchaic
cuneiformaspossessing(atbest)‘weakconnectionsto[spoken]language’(Damerow,1999,
5
2),othershaveseeninthetextscleartiestospokenlanguage. Particularlyvexedis‘the
Sumerianquestion’: wasproto-cuneiforminvented(if thatistherightterm)byspeakersof
Sumerian(alangueisoléeof theagglutinativetypeknownfromlater cuneiformdocuments)
6
orbyspeakersofsomeotherlanguage? Researchersaddresstwo sourcesinattemptingto
answer‘theSumerianquestion’:(1)possible clueswithinthecorpusofproto-cuneiform
tabletsthatunequivocallyindicateSumerianphonology,morphology,syntax,orlexicon;(2)
evidencewithinattestedSumerianforthepresenceofasubstratelanguage,indicativeofan
7
aboriginalpopulation. Inwhatfollows,Iamnotconcernedwiththe‘Sumerianquestion’
perse.Rather,Iwishtoexplorethecriteriabywhichweidentifycertainwritingas
glottographic(i.e. representingspokenlanguage),andtoanalyzetherelationbetweenwriting
andspeechinbothpastandpresentcontexts.
2. Signal confusions
8 9 10
Sampson(1985, 29)divideswriting into glottography,whichrepresents spokenlanguage,
11
andsemasiography,whichrepresentsideationalcontentdirectly. Yetsemasiographyisnota
2
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
felicitousspecies:instancesofsemasiographyareunifiedonlybythefactthattheydonot
notatespokenlanguage(thenotchesonthehandleofakiller’sknife,anilliteratepirate’s
treasuremap,theicononthepapershredderthatwarnsmetokeepmynecktieatasafe
distance,brandmarksontabletsofEcstasy,adiagramofafinitestateautomaton,Wilkins’
12
‘realcharacters’). AsPlatofamouslyobserved,thedichotomybarbarian/Greekleadspeople
totheerroneousbelief thatthereisanaturalclassofbarbarians,whoexemplifyasharedset
offeatures(Politicus262d–e).Iproposethatthetermsemasiographyisasvacuousasbarbarian
—andthatbotharisefromunexaminedprejudices.Itisbetterthatweemploythesimple
designationnon-glottographic.
Certaintypologists(e.g.Hill, 1967;cf.Coulmas,1996)denythepossibilityofnon-
glottographicwriting. Forthem,allwritingisfundamentallylinguistic—evenso-called
13
BildschriftandSachschrift(cf.Gelb,1952,4–6). SinceIdonotwishtogetboggeddownhere
inwhatismeantbytheterm‘linguistic,’Iproposesimplytodefinewritingasnon-
glottographicif (1)itcanbereadwithsimilarfacilitybyspeakersofdifferentlanguages, or
(2)itsreadinghasthecharacterofparaphrase(i.e.twodifferent‘readings’arelikelyto
employsignificantdifferencesinwordchoiceorsyntactic construction).
Insomeaccountsofnon-glottographicwriting,however,spokenlanguagesneaksinbythe
backdoor.Witness:‘Graphsofthissort[i.e.non-glottographic]mapdirectlyontotheworld
ofrealthings,andreadingthemisatwo-stepprocessthatproceedsfirstfromGRAPH toTHING
orACTION[…]andthenfromTHING/ACTIONtoNAME ofthing/action,thatis,toLEXICALMEANING’
(Boltz,2000,1–2). Theclaim(behindwhich oneistemptedtoseeanaïveHumboldtianism
orbehaviorism)isthattoread suchsigns,wemustmapthemontoverbalconcepts.WhenI
receivemyshirtbackfromthedrycleaner,Iseetheyellowsmileyfaceonthehanger;I
picturearealface[cf.Boltz’s‘worldofrealthings’]—smiling;Ithinkofthewords‘smile’
(andperhaps‘Haveaniceday!’). Thisscenarioissurelytobediscounted;rather,thehappy
faceleadsmebypriorassociationstoaparticularpsychologicalstate,withperhapsboth
cognitiveandemotionalcomponents;verballanguageisnotneeded(whichisnottosay
3
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
thatwedon’toftenverbalizewhenconfrontedwithsignsorthings).Also—andthisisa
pointtowhichIshallreturn—theverbalizationsthatmayarisewhenweareconfronted
withthesignarenot predictable andnotfixedinrelationtothesign.
Iemphasizethedividebetweennon-linguisticsignsandlinguistic conceptsbecause
scholarsofearlywritingfindthemselvesalltoooftenintheprison-houseoflanguage.
Considerthefollowingstatement,fromareputabletextbookofAkkadian:
Functionally,signsintheirearlieststagewerelogographic,i.e.they
representedoneormorespecificwords.Apurelylogographicwriting
systemispersenotboundtoanyspecificlanguage:givenasequence
ofpicture-signsrepresentingTHREE,SHEEP,GIVE,TEMPLE,agivensocial
contextmightenableoneto‘read’(addingformalmodifications
unexpressedinthewritingsystem)inEnglish‘threesheepweregiven
tothetemple’orinFrench‘onadonnétroisbrebisautemple’as
adequatelyasonecould‘read’suchatextinSumerian.(Caplice, 1988,
5)
Theconfusionhereisremarkable.Theauthoridentifiesalogogramascorrespondingtoone
ormorewords,butthendeniesthatlogographicwritingisglottographic!Ifproto-cuneiform
exhibitsthelooseconnectionclaimedherebetweenasequenceofsignsandanutterancein
aparticularlanguage(andsomeevidencesuggeststhatitdoes),thenproto-cuneiformisnot
glottographic.Outsidelanguagetherearenowords(and,hence,nologographicwriting).
3. Symptoms of glottography
InthissectionIidentifyfourcategoriesthatmightberegardedassymptomsofthe
dependenceofawritingsystemonspokenlanguage.Iintroducetheseingeneraland
summarizetheirapplicabilitytothecaseofproto-cuneiform.
3.1 Phonography
14
Byphonography,wemeanthenotationofspeechsounds. Obviouslysyllabariesand
alphabets(includingdefectivealphabetsthatrecord onlyconsonantsounds;theseare
15
sometimescalledabjads)arephonographic. Sotooarethehybridsemi-alphabetic scripts
usedinSouthandSoutheastAsia(Vaid,2002;Sproat,2000,45).Butasystemsuchas
Chinese—inwhichcharacters(字zi4)representmonosyllabicmorphemes—alsopossesses
4
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
aphonographicaspect.InChineseorthography,manycharactersarecomplexesgenerated
fromasemanticradicalandaphoneticcomplementthatindicatesthepronunciation.Thus
楓feng1‘maple’isanalyzedas木mu4‘tree’+風feng1‘wind’.AndsoaChinese reader
recognizesthat楓referstoatree (radical ontheleft)thatispronounced likethewordfor
wind(phoneticontheright).Thephoneticcorrespondenceneednotbeexact.Thatsuch
phoneticcompoundingisrecursiveaccountsforitsastonishingproductivityinChinese
16
writing(80%ofcharactersemploythedevice );thusthephoneticof 楓(i.e.風‘wind’) is
furtheranalyzedas虫hui3‘insect’+凡fan2‘all’(Mattingly&Hsiao,1999;Sproat,2000,49–
50;cf.Martin,1972;Yin,1994,21–25).(Admittedlythisanalysisisphoneticallyand
semanticallylessperspicuousthantheformer;theevolutionofwritingsystemstendsto
introducesomemeasureofopacity;cf.Halliday, 1981,128.)
Thereislimitedevidenceforphonographyintheearliestproto-cuneiform,fromtheUruk
17
IVa/IIIperiods(ca. 3200–3000B.C.E.). Thistakestwoforms.First,putativerebusreadings,
suchasTI‘arrow’(pictogramofabowandarrow) usedfortheSumerianhomophone‘life,
tolive’,inarchaicspellings(EN E TI )ofthecommonformula(d)En.lil .ti‘mayEnlil give
a 2a a 2
18
life’. Second,putativephoneticcomplements,similartothosejustdiscussedforChinese:
19
e.g.GA ×EN readMEN‘crown’;EZEN×ENreadEZEN ‘feast’ratherthanthevariantfor
2 x
theformersign, BAD ‘wall,enclosure’(Steinkeller,1995,694–695;Glassner,2003,145).
x
Third,putativesyllabicspellings:e.g.MAŠ+GAN fortheAkkadianloanmaškanu
2
20
‘threshingfloor;smallagriculturalsettlement’(Steinkeller,1995,695;Glassner, 2003,161);
GAL+KIN forKINGAL‘headoftheassembly’(Glassner,2003,146;N.B.thereversed
5
21
spelling).
22
Notoneoftheseexamplesisuncontroversial. Evenamongscholarswhoacceptthe
evidenceforphonographyinthearchaicscript,itisacknowledgedonlythat‘thereseemsto
23
beasmallamountofphoneticwritinginproto-cuneiform’(Cooper,2004,80).
3.2 La chaine de la parôle
5
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
Althoughnaturallanguagesyntaxcompriseshierarchical relationships(representedbytrees
ingenerativegrammar),speechisrealizedasalinearsequenceofwords(orofmorphemes).
Weexpectaglottographicwritingsystemtoencodespeechasastringofgraphemes.This
stringmustbeaccommodatedtothetwo-orthree-dimensionalsurface uponwhichitis
24
inscribed(e.g.bymakingprovision forline-breaks); butthedominantprincipleisthat
graphemesarearrangedin anorderthatcorrespondstotheirlicensingelementsinthe
25
temporalchainofspeech. (Thoughthelettersofane.e.cummingspoemsprawldrunkenly
downthepage,theirarrangementisdeterminedinlargepartbyacodethatexistsin
additiontotheglottographicone—Howtoreproducethearrangementorally?)
Proto-cuneiformtabletsexhibitastructurethatbearsvirtuallynoresemblancetonatural-
languagesyntax.‘Syntax[…]wasscarceornon-existent.Individualentriesandsummary
remarkswereenclosedincases(rectangularboxes)ontablets,andthesecasescouldbe
arrangedinverticalcolumns, butwithincasestheplacementofsignswasarbitrary,except
thatnumeralscamefirst’(Cooper,2004,81).‘Thepositionofthesignswithinthetextswas
determinedtoalesserextentbycriteriarelatingtolanguagesyntaxthanbythe“tablet
format.”Thislayoutwasspecifictoparticulareconomictransactions;itdeterminedhow
andwhereagivenbitofinformationwastobedisplayed.[…]Thevarioustabletsfromthe
earliestphasesofwritingthereforebearcloserresemblancetosuchmoderndocumentsas
punchedcards, dockets,clearingchecks,balancesheetsormanyotherformalizeddata
carriersthantoindependentlyandfreelycomposedmanuscriptsinthemodernsense’
26
(Nissenetal.,1993,30).
Lexical lists(which comprisemorethan10%oftheproto-cuneiformcorpus)followa
columnarformatwhereeachcasecontains(1)thesignN ,whichhasthevalue‘1’inthe
1
sexagesimalnumericsystem(thesignseemsheretoservemuchthesamepurposeasthe
modernbulletindemarcatingthebeginningofanentryinalist),and(2)oneormoresigns
correspondingtoadesignationofthecategorywithwhichthelist isconcerned(e.g.a
27
profession,nameofacity, typeofanimal,etc.).
6
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
Aphenomenonconcomitantwiththe(neartotal)absenceofnaturallanguagesyntaxisthe
absenceofgrammatical functionwordsandmorphs.Signsonadministrativetablets
correspondgenerallytonumericnotations,saliententitiessuchasagriculturalproductsand
disbursements,andadministrativetitles/names.Therelevantactionsaregenerallytobe
inferredfromthedocumenttype.OnlybytheUrperiod(ca.2800)arethereclearlyreliable
indicationsofSumerianfunctionmorphs(Cooper,2004,80).
3.3 Formal characteristics
Whatistheformofglottographicwriting?Inasuperficialsense,itisaline:left-to-right(for
English),right-to-left(forHebrew),top-to-bottom(forMongolian), boustrophêdon(i.e.
alternatingdirection:left-to-right,thenright-to-left,etc.)inthecaseofseveralpaleographic
28
traditions. Sometimeswritingfollowsadifferentcurveinordertoaccommodateitself to
itsmaterial:thusaninscriptionaroundtherimofaplatewill followthecircumference.
Onlyrarelydoesglottographytransfigureitselfcompletely,intosomethinglike
Apollinaire’sCalligrammes,orthecalligraphic rendition ofsūra105oftheQur’an(al-Fīl)that
takestheformofanelephant.
Letusbeginwithontogeny.Howdochildrenwrite,beforetheyhavebeentaught?Atthe
firststage,thereisundifferentiatedwriting(Tolchinsky, 2003,56–62;Gibson,1972,12).
Childrenatthisstagearecapableofdistinguishingbetween(whatconstitutesfortheir
culture)writingandnon-writing.Whentheywrite,words(orothersalientlinguistic units)
maynotbeidentifiable; yetwefindsomecriticalfeatures:‘linearity, presenceof
29
distinguishableunits, regularityofblanks,anddirectionality’(Tolchinsky,2003,58). These
featuresdifferentiatewrittenlanguagefrompictures; similarly,formalconfigurations
distinguishwrittenlanguagefromnumericnotations.Childrenwhohavenotyetlearnedto
readwill rejectstringsofrepeatedtokensas‘goodforreading’(e.g.AAAA),butwillallow
themaspotentialnumericalnotations‘goodforcounting’(e.g.2222)(Tolchinsky,2003,152–
157).
7
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
Formreachesmuchdeeper,however.Inthe1930sand40sGeorgeKingsleyZipfdiscovered
anumberoffactsaboutthedistributionofitemsinlanguage.Bestknownis‘Zipf’sLaw,’
whichstatesanexpectedrelationbetweentherankorderofawordinatextanditsfrequency.
Aword’srankisitsmeasureoffrequencyincomparisonwithotherwords(sothattheword
withrank1isthemostfrequentwordinthetext;thewordwithrank2,thesecondmost
frequent;etc.);aword’sfrequencyisthetotalnumberofoccurrencesofthewordinthetext
(orsample).Zipf’slawpredictsthatinatext/sampleofsufficientlength,thefrequencyof
wordswill followaharmonic series, suchthatthewordwithrank2occursapproximately
halfasoftenasthatwithrank1,thewordwithrank3occursapproximatelyonethirdas
oftenasthatwithrank1,andsoon.Thustherank-frequencypointswilllieonornearthe
hyperbolic curverf=C,whererisaterm’srank,fitsfrequency,andCisaconstant.When
plottedondoublylogarithmicscales, thiscurvewill appearasalinewithslope=-1(Zipf,
1949,19–55). Thepredictionhasrepeatedlybeenshowntoholdtrueforwordsintext
samplesdrawnfrommanylanguages,periods,andgenres.Asanillustration,FIGURE1plots
30
therank-frequencyrelationinaLatintextofthe16thcentury.
Theproto-cuneiformcorpusconsistsofca.5820tablets, whichcontainca.42000signs,
31
excludingnumericsigns(Englund,1998, 65). Thesetokensrepresent 1618signtypes
provisionallyidentifiedasdistinct,althoughtheworkondecidingwhich signforms
32
representmereallographsandwhich aregraphemicallydistinctisbynomeanscomplete.
Ifwetreattheentirecorpusasasinglesample,wecanplotsignsbyrank-frequency,aswe
33
didabove(FIGURE2). It isimmediatelyevidentthattheplotdifferssubstantiallyfromthat
expectedforwordsinanaturallanguage;inparticular,asrankincreases,frequency
decreasesconsiderablymoreslowly.Thisresultisnotsurprising,as(1)thereisnoreasonto
supposethatproto-cuneiformsignsrepresentwords, and(2)ithasnotbeendemonstrated
thatproto-cuneiformisinfactglottographic.
Ontheotherhand,thedistributionofproto-cuneiformsignsbroadlyresemblesthe
distributionofmorphemesinanaturallanguage(seeZipf,1949,87–97). Bycomparison,we
8
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
shalllookataclassical Chinesetext.TheChinesewritingsystemisoverwhelming
morphosyllabic, inthatitscharacters(字)typically representmonosyllabic morphemes
(Ramsey,1989,58–59;Yin,1994,311–312;cf. supra,§3.1).Thustherank-frequency
distributionofChinesecharactersisverysimilartothatofnatural-languagemorphemes
34
(FIGURE 3). Thesimilaritybetweentheproto-cuneiformandChinesedataisstriking.Yetof
course,wecannotconcludethatproto-cuneiformsignsrepresentmorphemesinanatural
language;all wecanconcludewithsafetyisthattheirdistributionandfunctioningisin
certainrespectsakintonaturallanguagemorphemes. Oneaspectofthisfunctional
similarityisthatsignsarecombinedtoformnames/titles,suchasKUŠIM(KU+ŠIM),
apparentlyanadministrativeofficialnamedoneighteentabletsoftheErlenmeyercollection
35
(Nissenetal.,1993,36–46). Likewise,qualifieddesignationsinvolvesigncombinations
wherethecomponentsmightbethoughtofas‘morphemic’(regardlessofwhetherwetake
thearchaictextsasbeingglottographicorasbeingcomposedinapurelywritten
Sondersprache):e.g.KUR+AMAR‘bullcalf’, SAL+AMAR‘heifercalf’,AB +GA‘milkcow’,
2
AMAR+GA‘suckling(calf)’(Nissen etal.,1993,89).
3.4 Mediation
Inapassagethathasbeenquotedtothepointoftedium,Aristotledeclaresthatwritten
wordsarethesignsofspokenwords,which inturnarethesignsofpsychological states(De
interpretatione16a4–6).That,ofcourse,isastatementaboutglottography. Non-glottographic
writinglacksthemediationofspokenlanguage;itsnotationsarethemselvessignsof
36
psychologicalstates.Proto-cuneiformsignsdepictthings, butbeyondtheobjectthatis
moststraightforwardlydepicted, thereliesasemanticconstellation:‘apictogramcanrelate
tootherrealities, attachedtothesameobjectbymentalprocessesthataremoreorless
foundedinreality, ordownrightconventional,andperfectlywellknownandutilizedinthe
37
representationofart’(Bottéro,1992,76). Newsignscanbecreatedfromexistingsignsby
producingtableaux;forinstance,SAG‘head,person’+NINDA‘rationingvessel’(a
pictogramofabeveled-rimbowl)yieldsGU ‘disbursement(offoodrations)’, which comes
7
9
DRAFT2006-04-01,toappearinLanguage&Communication
eventuallythroughtheineluctableprocessofsemanticchangetomeansimply‘eat’(Nissen
etal.,1993,14–15).Writing,however,differsfromthefigurativeartsinthatiteschews
particularsandseeksratherthegeneric,theuniversal,theuniform,theconventional
(Bottéro,1992,77).Whenasignisdrawnagain,itisnotanewpicture,butratheranother
instanceofthesamesign.Justastheformofthesignbecomesstereotyped,sodoesits
semantics.Thesignisnownolongerinterpretivelyopen-endedinthefashionofapicture;
rather,itbecomeslimitedtoafewconventionalusages(onepresumesthatthelexical lists
playedaroleinthisprocess). Thisgeneralizationofformandfunctionallowsusto
distinguishnon-glottographicwritingfrompicturesandothermanifestationsofthe
figurativearts,andallowsustospeaknotincoherentlyofnon-glottographicwriting
systems.
Thelastpoint,however, isevidentlycontroversial. Unger&DeFrancisassert,bluntly,‘[a]
semasiographicwritingsystemisacontradictioninterms’(1995,53). Theirargumentisnot
thatnon-linguistic signsareimpossible perse,butratherthattheycannotserveasthebasis
foracommunicativesystembecause:(1)picturesarenotself-explanatory, and(2)awriting
systemcouldnotbedevelopedwithoutrecoursetospokenlanguageforthepurposeof
38
descriptionandexplanation. Totheformer,wemayquotePettersson: ‘DeFrancisisof
courserightinthatpicturesarenotunderstandablebythemselves—ittakesacultureto
39
explainthem,namelytheverycultureinwhich theywereproduced’(1996,51). Tothe
latter,IshoulddoubtthatanyonebelievestheUrukscribesdidnotspeakamutually
intelligible languageamongstthemselves.Butitissenselesstoassertthatrecoursetoa
spokenlanguagefortheexplanationandteachingofawritingsystemmakesthatsystem
glottographic;weshouldthenbeobligedtoclassifyvirtuallyalltechnologyaslinguisticin
nature,becausehumansrelyonspokencommunicationinitscreationanduse.
4. Glottographic and non-glottographic writing
Theevidenceavailable atpresentseemsinsufficienttomakeacleardiagnosisof
10