Is Arabic the first cursive writing?

[quadibloc]

@dudfellow:
You raise an interesting question.

Some objections to the specific form in which it was put can be raised, though.

If people make fonts for Arabic that provide high-quality calligraphic features, that won't mean that there is now a danger that when someone takes all their computers away, they won't be able to go back to using Linotype machines and typewriters, because they will no longer accept the inferior output from them.

There's no reason to expect that level of dependency would be created by the computer when it didn't exist originally - when the pen was frequently resorted to. Nor is there a real threat of the Islamic world being decomputerized.

On the other hand, while I think many people will object to this as well, it is legitimate to question if a society has its priorities straight when its esthetic preferences for its writing system are allowed to get in the way of mass literacy and technical progress.

Given the wide acceptance of the Yakout typeface in Arabic newspapers, for example, however, the Arab world does not seem to be nearly as much a case of this as China and Japan.

Typewriter faces with only two forms of each letter have been well enough accepted in the Arab world, and the additional complexity of two forms of each letter does not to me seem sufficient as to be a major obstacle to Arabic participation in the computer revolution.

[hrant]

It is important to note here that there's much more to literacy than the mere efficient decipherment of individual glyphs (something BTW that the human mind is much better at than some people think). Not to mention that it's entirely worthwhile giving up some efficiency for cultural identity.

hhp

[dudefellow]

hrant: "It is important to note here that there's much more to literacy than the mere efficient decipherment of individual glyphs (something BTW that the human mind is much better at than some people think)."

An article appeared on the front page of the Irish Times newspaper on Friday this week about the experiment reported in the journal Science entitled "Orthographic Processing in Baboons (Papio papio)"
by authors Jonathan Grainger, Stéphane Dufau, Marie Montant, Johannes C. Ziegler, and Joël ****.

It seems that the baboons were trained to recognise words by their spelling and remember them. I wonder whether they could achieve the same with other systems of writing? Yes, I wonder, but that does not mean that we benefit from the experiment.

quadibloc : "the Arab world does not seem to be nearly as much a case of this as China and Japan."

They make the effort though. Hence the need for and sanctioning of Pinyin.

[John Hudson]

It seems that the baboons were trained to recognise words by their spelling and remember them.

No, they were trained to recognise patterns in letter order that are found in English words vs patterns that are not, which enabled them to identify words vs non-words when introduced to letter sequences that they had not seen before. This is the important part.

[hrant]

John, it's great that you keep sticking up for the little guys - just don't go this far:
http://io9.com/5883002/seaworld-is-being-sued-by-five-of-its-enslaved-ki...
;-)

hhp

[dudefellow]

John Hudson: "trained to recognise patterns in letter order that are found in English words vs patterns that are not"

If they were trained to recognise the patterns, then I don't see the point of the experiment. What would matter more is that the baboons could discover the patterns themselves on their own initiative, without being shown them by rewards. If they were trained only to recognise patterns of orthography, which have a vestigial underlying phonological basis despite irregular spelling, somehow without at the same time being trained to recognise words by their spelling, then in the prospective test, the baboons would only have been identifying sets of letters that satisfied the patterns that they were trained to detect rather than by whether the sets were words, with the exception of any mistakes (that is to say, not doing what the experimenters want them to do) that the baboons would make occasionally. If, on the other hand, the baboons had failed the test, we could only say that they were too dim-witted to catch on to the training.

[John Hudson]

What would matter more is that the baboons could discover the patterns themselves on their own initiative, without being shown them by rewards.

What possible criteria could the baboons have to discover such patterns on their own? They don't speak English. The baboons have to be given a basis for distinguishing the patterns of English orthography from non-word letter sequences, and that basis is provided by the reward that they receive during the training. You can't say to a baboon 'This one is an English word and this one isn't'; you have to communicate the distinction via something that the baboon understands and finds motivational.

...the baboons would only have been identifying sets of letters that satisfied the patterns that they were trained to detect rather than by whether the sets were words...

No. The baboons were trained to distinguish words from non-words. They were not presented with sets of letters but with words and non-words, and they were rewarded for identifying the words by pressing a particular button, and then for identifying non-words by pressing a different button. So the training and subsequent testing is of word selection vs non-word selection, not for learning particular sequences of letters. The testers are not somehow telling the baboons that what they need to do is memorise certain letter sequences: they are presenting two kinds of objects, and teaching the baboons that some of these correspond to one button and some to another. Then the baboons are shown different sets of objects, that they have not seen before, and have to try to decide which correspond to which button. The fact that they are able to do so correctly demonstrates a) that they are able to distinguish different orders of letters (since that is, in fact, what distinguishes the two kinds of object), b) have understood that this is the criteria by which to distinguish the objects, and c) can extrapolate ordering principles from one set of objects to another set. That is pretty darned remarkable, especially when you consider that baboons are not considered among the most intelligent of primates and that they are not in the hominid line. The latter point is most interesting to me, because it means that if the cognitive mechanism by which the baboons are able to do these things is the same mechanism by which humans can, then it must have evolved before the split between Cercopithecidae and Hominidae, and that implies some time in the Miocene period, probably between nine and fourteen million years ago.

[dudefellow]

Don't you understand the conditional "If they were trained only to recognise patterns of orthography"?

By "patterns" and the context of your comment "No, they were trained to recognise patterns in letter order" in reply to mine "It seems that the baboons were trained to recognise words by their spelling ", I assumed you meant orthographic patterns. Unless the word orthography means something different to me than to others, it is a consequence of the allowed permutations of letters in the spelling of words, for a particular language and system of writing. It is not possible to have orthography without spelling. In an abstract way, one might suppose a hypothetical system of orthographic rules, but these could only be conveyed by actual permutations in sample words. Visually, words are nothing more than permutations of letters that become allowed. Hence, in order for the baboons to have been trained to identify orthographic patterns, they had to recognise spelling, which is nothing more than permutation of letters. In summary, the baboons could not have only been taught to recognise orthographic patterns, they had to be able to recognise spelling as a prerequisite.

It is a personal opinion of mine that the result of the experiment has no consequence unless the baboons show the ability to formulate orthographic rules of their own volition, without artificial rewards. The baboons were trained to recognise the patterns. More important would be to observe the baboons using this ability in a natural setting, without using trials. That is not likely to happen unless we see baboons suddenly picking up implements and writing their own letters. (This is not as improbable as it sounds. I have read before in a book a myth about how a certain system of writing in Africa was in origin imparted to humans from baboons that approached humans around their fires.)

[John Hudson]

I think we basically agree then about what the baboons were trained to do: to recognise the orthographic patterns of English spelling such that they could henceforth recognise English words and to distinguish them from non-words. Yes?

I find your comments about the experimental results having 'no consequences unless the baboons show the ability to formulate orthographic rules of their own volition, without artificial rewards' simply bizarre though. Consequences for whom? The results demonstrate not only that baboons have the capacity for orthographic processing but that this capacity is independent of language knowledge (obviously). The experiment tells us things about that capacity, not about the consequences of that capacity. Obviously what humans have done with that capacity is very different from what other primates have done with it, yet the fact that the capacity seems to be shared suggests very interesting things about our shared evolution. It suggests, among other things, that core perceptual and cognitive functions that enable the mechanics of reading are very, very old. I'd long assumed that these functions preceded the invention of writing by some long period, but this experiment indicates that they may have evolved long before human beings became such. What the baboons have done, might do or will do with this demonstrated capacity is beside the point: the experiment has consequences for our understanding of ourselves. What is consequential in the study is what it tells us about the capacity, and the fact that baboons have not, apparently, exploited to capacity to create writing and reading 'of their own volition' is neither here not there; since the capacity likely predates human written language by some millions of years, of more interest is the question of why it might have been evolutionarily selected for or to what selected-for trait it was a free rider.

[dudefellow]

Although I go too far to say "no consequence", I don't find the result surprising. Obviously, humans have to have the capacity or else we would not be able to read. We know therefore that our ancestors had the capacity also where we have evidence of writing. When the capacity arose does not seem to be interesting to me. It especially does not seem to be interesting if it is not being put to use for writing and reading. I suspect that the ability to recognise permutations must be more necessary for vision than may have been thought. I think that we underestimate the cognitive abilities of animals. I am utterly convinced that I have heard birds talking to each other. It is a secret language that they do not sing out loud and use very quietly. We only need to know one case of when a bird or animal has been able to speak to us, as a trained African grey parrot, that they would tell us that they want freedom if only they could. I saw the parrot on television say that it didn't want to do any more tests and wanted to be let out, but the experimenter told the parrot in reply that it had to do the tests.

[John Hudson]

The published paper describing the experiment is available online:
http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%20pubs/graingeretal.pdf

The conclusion makes clear what the researchers consider the significance of the findings, and I agree with them. I don't think it is a matter of having underestimated the cognitive abilities of animals, but of confirming that a particular cognitive ability that humans use for a very specialised cultural activity is shared with primates that do no use it for that purpose. And I do find that interesting because it obliges us to generalise the ability, even beyond notions of pattern recognition being useful for e.g. hunting.

[AzizMostafa]

... but of confirming that a particular cognitive ability that humans use for a very specialised cultural activity
-
The Glorious Holy Quran Confirms that particular cognitive ability ANIMALS use for a very specialised cultural activity?!

… till, when Solomon and his hosts came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said, 'Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, being unaware!' But Solomon smiled, laughing at her words...
...
And Solomon reviewed the birds; and said, 'How is it with me, that I do not see the hoopoe? Or is he among the absent? But the hoopoe tarried not long, and said, 'I have comprehended that which you have not comprehended, and I have come from Sheba to you with a sure tiding.
--
Comprehensive?!

[dudefellow]

AzizMostafa: "The Glorious Holy Quran Confirms that particular cognitive ability ANIMALS use for a very specialised cultural activity?!"

There is an incident in the Bible, in the book Numbers, Chapter 22 verses 28 to 30 involving a speaking donkey.

I recall reading an article that appeared in the Economist, issue July 10th 2010, pages 73 to 74, titled: "The Da Vinci code" subtitled: "Reading may involve unlearning an older skill" relevant to some of the work of researchers such as Stanislas Dehaene and Mark Changizi. I had taken an interest in it at the time, because it was suggested that baboons have build-in specific areas of the brain for detecting certain graphical features that occur in letters. As far as I recall, the article discussed whether learning to read could hijack parts of the brain that would otherwise have been used for skills that are necessary for social interaction, such as recognition of faces. I wonder whether conditions such as Asperger's syndrome could be improved by discouraging too much reading, or whether some systems of writing would have a greater tendency to hinder socialisation, and to what extent the amount of morphography versus phonography in the writing affects this, if at all.

The table that is included with my post of 7 Jul 2011 — 9:35am in this node also can be consulted as Figure 135, page 175 of the book "Sign, Symbol and Script" by author Hans Jensen, published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1970.

[dudefellow]

dudefellow 21 Apr 2012 — 1:41pm: "was suggested that baboons"

They might have been macaques or other primates and not specifically baboons.