It has been argued that language is shaped, at least in part, by functional cognitive pressures to communicate efficiently. The question of whether or not language is efficient has been explored relative to a wide range of linguistic phenomena, and there is mounting evidence that languages do seem to be communicatively efficient. One area which is underexplored in the efficiency literature, however, is whether there is evidence for efficiency pressures shaping writing systems and written language. In the absence of dedicated studies on efficiency in the written modality, it is difficult to say with certainty whether functional cognitive pressures apply to human communication systems across modalities. In addition, because writing systems feature properties which have no direct analogs in other modalities, the efficiency of such properties can only be evaluated through research which focuses directly on the efficiency of writing systems and written language.
Approached from the direction of the writing systems literature, there have been numerous theoretical proposals over the years regarding what makes a writing system efficient, economical, or practical, either in a vacuum or relative to a particular (type of) spoken language. In addition, it’s been proposed, or at least assumed, that certain typological properties of writing systems are inherently impractical, and their presence has been cited as evidence that functional cognitive pressures may exert little, if any, influence over writing systems and written language. However, in both cases, such proposals are rarely followed up with data driven, computational studies which can quantitatively evaluate their merit.
The goal of this document is to help address these gaps. Relative to the efficiency literature, the studies presented here expand the scope to more directly focus on language’s written modality. Relative to the writing systems literature, the studies presented here offer a more data-driven approach to concepts which are often theorized, but rarely empirically and quantitatively tested.
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 contain a mix of literature review and general background which help contextualize the studies reported in the dissertation’s later chapters. Chapter 2’s focus is writing systems and written language: in addition to providing a review of relevant literature and serving as an introductory primer for the reader who is not already familiar with such topics, chapter 2 clarifies the writing systems-related terminology which will be used throughout the dissertation. Chapter 3 starts by covering the theory and methodology behind the concept of efficiency; the chapter then proceeds to a review of the existing literature on how efficiency pressures may shape language, including reviewing the current state of ideas and evidence regarding efficiency in writing systems and written language. Chapter 4 is intended as a compact introduction to (written) Sumerian and (written) Japanese, which serve as case studies for the following chapters.
Chapters 5 and 6 report on two studies that aim to contribute to the broader question of efficiency pressures in writing systems. In chapter 5, it is asked whether polyvalence (i.e., ambiguity) and logography (i.e., the potential for morphographic and/or semantographic spellings) are used in written Sumerian and written Japanese in ways which facilitate effi- cient communication, despite being properties which have a somewhat inefficient reputation. By comparing the two target systems against a battery of plausible hypothetical competitor systems, it is found that the real systems do appear to be efficient: very few of the hypothetical competitors would have been both less effortful to use and more informative about sounds or meanings than the real systems. Via the comparison with hypothetical systems, the results of chapter 5 also show that switching to a more transparently phonographic writing system would not have made writing these languages more efficient.
Chapter 6 hones in on a more typologically rare property in writing systems, namely the use of semantic determinatives, written units which convey semantic information but do not map onto spoken sounds or morphemes. Using written Sumerian as a case study, it is found that semantic determinatives do seem to have been used efficiently by Sumerian scribes; however, contrary to the most common justification given for the presence of semantic determinatives, the results suggest that determinatives were not used especially efficiently as a means of lexical disambiguation. Rather, while determinatives do sometimes serve to disambiguate otherwise ambiguous spellings, determinatives may have also served as an efficient means of preparing readers for words that occur in less predictable contexts, thereby smoothing out information in Sumerian texts.
While preliminary in many respects, the findings presented here support the hypothesis that writing systems and written languages are indeed shaped, at least in part, by functional communicative pressures. Even writing systems which have uneven reputations regarding their utility, such as written Japanese and written Sumerian, appear to be functional and efficient means of communication.