The inventory of complex strokes is limited by the same stroke di-
rection constraints: the axis direction changes at the endpoint (right or
bottom) of the previous portion, as in (7).

(7) a. ㄉ司

b. ㄉ口

c. 匠

Strokes have undoubtedly psychological reality. Readers and writers
tend to be consciously aware of them because they are explicitly re-
ferred to in lexicographical and pedagogical traditions, but they affect
automatic processing as well: stroke number is routinely taken into ac-
count in reading experiments to control for visual complexity, and there
is some evidence that it matters in writing experiments as well (Wang,
Huang, Zhou, and Cai, 2020).

As demonstrated by Bohn (1998), Menzerath's law also applies to
strokes, further reconfirming their psychologically real status. Stroke
complexity was quantified on a scale that counted the number of linear
segments and also hooking, so that both strokes in (8a) were given a
score of two, on up to a maximum score of 5 for the stroke in (8b) (four
segments plus a hook). Bohn found that the more strokes there were in
a character component, the lower was the mean stroke complexity, in
accordance with an inverse power function.

(8) a. ㄉ嶽

b. ㄉㄜ

2.3. The Prosodic Structure of Chinese Characters

Building on research like that sketched above, Myers (2019) argues
that parallel to the traditional hierarchy of strokes building components
building characters, there is also structure analogous with prosody,
specifically metrical feet. In spoken language, metrical feet are sup-
ported by a vast array of data, including perception experiments (Cutler
and Clifton, 1984), production experiments (Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer,
1999), and corpus analyses (Myers and Tsay, 2015), and there are similar
data from signed languages as well (Crasborn, Kooij, and Ros, 2012).

The notion that written forms have a visual analog to prosody is also
advanced in works like Evertz (2018) for spelling in the Roman alphabet.
However, while the visual prosody of letters is claimed to correlate with
that of the spoken phonemes they represented, the prosody that Myers
(2019) sees in Chinese characters is completely unrelated to any of the
spoken languages written with them, but relates solely to visual form.
At the heart of the analysis is the prosodic template in (9), realized in its full form as in (9a) and reduced as in (9b-d). This template places a single strong (S) position (head) in the bottom and/or right of a character or a component, with the remaining positions being weak (W). The lower right position is emphasized because strokes within a component and components within a character all tend to be written from left to right and top to bottom, and final gestures are given greater emphasis, not just in writing (e.g., in Western handwriting: Wann and Nimmo-Smith, 1991) but also in speech (Beckman and Edwards, 1990) and signing (Sandler, 1993).

(9) a. [W]
[W S]

b. [W]
[S]

c. [W S]

d. [S]

This stress-like prominence is visually obvious in the different sizes of the reduplicated components in (10), where the larger component is at the bottom (10a) or right (10b). Note also that component reduction involves doubling, either along one axis (10a-b) or along both (10c), again similar to the prosodically constrained reduplication of spoken language (McCarthy and Prince, 1998) and signed language (Berent and Dupuis, 2017).

(10) a. 昌多炎

b. 林珏比

c. 品森犇

This prominence generalization is sometimes clear even when the components are different, as in (11).

(11) a. 大：奧～奇

b. 田：富～畢

Myers (2019) argues that the prosodic weakness of the leftmost and topmost positions also explains (synchronically) the preference for semantic radicals to appear in these positions. This is because semantic radicals tend to be small along the relevant dimension (i.e., left-edge radicals are thin relative to the horizontal axis while top-edge radicals are flat relative to the vertical axis), as in (12).

(12) a. ㄤ：很

b. **（derived from艸）：花
The same correlation between position and size is also observed within basic components, as illustrated in (13) with some from the inventory proposed for traditional characters by Chuang and Teng (2009). Note that among the parallel strokes, the longest is that at the bottom (13a) or right (13b).

(13) a. 二干土イ彡

b. 丌川

These generalizations have exceptions. Characters with small right-edge or bottom-edge semantic radicals do exist, like those in (14a), and there are an even smaller number of components with prominent top-most horizontal strokes, as in (14b). The existence of exceptions is also stresslike, however: the strong preference of English for strong-weak stress (**button**) and unstressed suffixes (**eating**) is not nullified by exceptions (**baton**, **unwell**).

(14) a. 戈：戦

b. 士

Some of the above components also illustrate an analog of prosodically conditioned allophony, namely curving of the vertical stroke on the left edge. Further components showing this are given in (15).

(15) 升井片用

The curving generalization seems to have more lexical exceptions than prominence, as illustrated with the components in (16).

(16) 巾再冊

However, as first observed by Wang (1983), such exceptions are more likely in horizontally wider constituents, where, for example, the characters in (17a) have more horizontal strokes (making them “taller”) than the corresponding ones in (17b) (making them “wider”).

(17) a. 月：周月

b. 门：同册

Myers (2019) confirms that this tendency is indeed statistically significant, then goes on to propose an explanation: curving is only possible in a prosodically weak position, and wider components contain two prosodic templates rather than one, putting the left edge in a strong (head) position. This analysis is illustrated in (18). Curving in a weak position is thus similar to vowel reduction in unstressed syllables.
(18) a. 月 [WS]

b. 册 [S][S]

In addition to statistical analyses of character databases, the psychological reality of the character prosodic template has also been supported in a series of experiments. Myers (2016) demonstrated that readers generalize constraints on reduplication shape to nonce characters. Myers (2019) showed that readers find nonce components more acceptable if the largest stroke is at the bottom or right, and prefer a curved vertical stroke to appear at the left rather than elsewhere. Myers (2020) found that readers prefer nonce characters to have thin rather than wide left-edge semantic radicals, whereas widening right-edge semantic radicals did not reduce acceptability much, presumably because doing so made the nonce characters conform better to the regular prosodic template.

Note that because metrical feet and the proposed character prosodic template are defined by their shape, Menzerath's law does not apply. It would make no sense to ask if feet are smaller in longer words, because feet always have the same number of syllables (if available), and the same is true for the proposed character template.

### 3. Stroke Groups As Orthographic Syllables

As spelled out in (19), spoken and signed syllables have a number of well-established properties.

(19) a. In a syllable, sonority (energy) increases to a peak and then falls.

b. Syllables are perceptually highly salient.

c. Syllables are targeted by foot-level processes like stress.

d. Articulatory gestures are more closely coordinated within than across syllables.

e. Nuclei are obligatory, onsets are favored, and codas are disfavored.

f. Syllables compete for space in morphemes (Menzerath's law).

Properties (19a-b) do not seem to apply to stroke groups. Whereas we can say that /pro/ makes a good syllable and */rpo/ a bad one (and likewise for <pro> vs. *<rpo>*, as reviewed in Evertz, 2018) because of the intrinsic sonority of the segments (and letters), there seems to be no way to rank Chinese strokes in an analogous way. Strokes do differ in energy (as reflected in size), but as we saw in the previous section, this is predictable from position, making this phenomenon analogous to stress and not sonority. Moreover, there is as yet no evidence that stroke
groups are perceptually salient, that is, that readers are sensitive not just to components and strokes but also to some intermediate level.

Nevertheless, section 3.1 argues that property (19c) does apply to stroke groups: the character template is built on syllable-like units. Section 3.2 then provides arguments that the related properties (19d-e), concerning syllable-internal structure, apply as well. Finally, Section 3.3 demonstrates property (19f): the applicability of Menzerath's law.

## 3.1. Stroke Groups and Prosodic Regularities

If regular prominence at the bottom and right is analogous to stress, enlargeable constituents should be analogous to syllables. As we have seen, these include certain simple components, like those in (20a), and certain individual strokes, as in (20b).

(20) a. 昌多
b. 二土川井

Yet regular enlargement also affects groups of multiple strokes, not just individual ones, even if they do not form full components. I illustrate this in (21) with a variety of examples: (21a-c) show enlargement of the lower of two linked boxes, (21d) shows something similar with other duplicate sets of strokes, and (21e) shows a cross-character contrast in enlargement of box versus (linked) stroke.

(21) a. 串弗虽
b. 鳹
c. 官
d. 出飛
e. 由甲

At the same time, not all individual strokes are subject to prominence. As illustrated in (22), prominence does not affect the bottommost horizontal stroke if this ends (at the right) at another stroke (22a) or makes contact at both ends (22b), and instead the next-lowest free horizontal stroke is enlarged. If there is no free stroke, as in (22c), prominence can only apply to the entire complex, as in (22d). Bottommost strokes that cross others but are free at both ends (22e), and perhaps also those free just at the right (22f), are subject to prominence, as are strokes that are contacted at their midpoint by other strokes, as in (22g).

(22) a. 申 (フーエ)
b. 廿 (一ーエ)
c. 口 (フー)
d. 串

e. 干

f. 非

g. 工

One way to put all of these observations together is to consider spa-
tially separated strokes (and certain simple components, to be eluci-
dated later) to be stroke groups, along with simple strokes with free
ends. A stroke that ends in contact with another stroke is instead part
of a stroke group that contains both strokes, unless that stroke is subject
to a stroke-group-level process, like prominence, and thus a separate
stroke group.

Left-edge curving also provides some information about the nature
of stroke groups. According to the argument given in section 2.3, a ver-
tical curved stroke is only possible if it is in a prosodically weak position,
analogous to an unstressed syllable. I also argued that a vertical stroke
in this position is more likely to be straight if it is the head of its own
prosodic template, analogous to a stressed syllable. Either way, then, a
potentially curvable leftmost vertical stroke should be considered a sep-
arate stroke group. Thus despite being composed of contacting strokes,
each of the components in (23) should contain at least two stroke groups.

(23) 厂尸门

3.2. Stroke Groups and Stroke Interactions

If stroke groups are like syllables, they should also restrict how strokes
can combine, similar to the way spoken and signed syllables restrict
phoneme and handshape sequences. I start my argument for this claim
in section 3.2.1 with a review of previous studies on stroke interactions
in the perception and production of simple line drawings, and then show
how these relate to the structure of syllables in speech and signing.
Combined with the previous discussion of the prosody of prominence
and curving, this comparison will allow me in section 3.2.2 to interpret
different kinds of basic stroke interactions in terms of different kinds of
syllable-internal structure. Particularly challenging cases are surveyed
in section 3.2.3.

3.2.1. *Natural Stroke Interactions*

A particularly insightful analysis of how perception affects written
strokes is given in Changizi, Zhang, Ye, and Shimojo (2006), who
counted the frequencies of all 36 possible configurations of one to three
strokes in a variety of writing systems and beyond. Each of their configurations defined a class of topological equivalents, where, for example, <Z> and <[>] are identical since both link three strokes at two joints. For my purposes, their key finding was that writing systems strongly favor a small subset of configurations, with only those listed in (24) approaching or exceeding a proportional frequency of .1 (taken from Figure 2, p. E118). Each configuration is illustrated with Chinese character components that contain it.

(24)
a. I 一二八リ川
b. L レク厂へ
c. T 丁トイ人入
d. X メ十
e. Z 乙巳両乙巳
f. F チ

Changizi, Zhang, Ye, and Shimojo (ibid.) argue that the variation in configuration frequency is due to visual and not motoric processes, since the same variation is observed in trademarks, which are virtually never handwritten, but not in shorthand, where writing ease is favored over visual clarity.

Nevertheless, as noted in section 2.2, strokes are also gestural things, having not just an axis but also a direction (i.e., they are vectors), with the strong preference for the rightward and downward directions constraining what complex strokes are possible. Seeing strokes as vectors also helps explain stroke combinations as well. In particular, in Chinese character components, the T configuration is not only quite common, but is almost always written with the midpoint of one stroke (e.g., the top of the T) coinciding with the starting, not the ending, of the other stroke (e.g., the falling vertical stroke of the T).

Some Chinese character components conforming to this midpoint-start pattern are shown in (25). There are cases of a stroke ending at the midpoint of another stroke, as in (26), but most of these also conform to the midpoint-start pattern, as in (26b).

(25) ㄋ刀乃ㄩ才イ久文不牙手毛气牛片斤氏勿尹毋弐

(26)
a. ミム土士ク么央
b. エ夕両王歹五止日月及ナ両丑口田由甲

The explanation for these preferences in stroke direction and contact lies in how strokes are written, and as with the visual patterns observed by Changizi, Zhang, Ye, and Shimojo (ibid.), the motoric constraints are universal. Here the most ambitious survey is van Sommers (1984) (see also the summary in van Sommers, 1989), who reports a series of analyses and experiments on the production of simple line drawings. Regarding
ing individual strokes, writers (and sketchers) prefer to pull the writing instrument rather than to push it, which means that right-handers, who dominate in the population, draw strokes rightward and/or downward (yielding ambiguous preferences for counterdiagonal strokes), though left-handers often draw strokes leftward and/or downward. The conventions of Chinese stroke direction, prescriptively imposed on left-handers as well, are thus not arbitrary.

The experiments reviewed in van Sommers (1984; 1989) also confirm the universality of the midpoint-start pattern of the T configuration, which has also been noted in many other studies (Goodnow and Levine, 1973; Ninio and Lieblich, 1976; Nihei, 1983; Simner, 1981; Smyth, 1989; Thomassen and Tibosch, 1991). Of course, as Smyth (1989) points out, stroke coordination also depends on hand-eye coordination, so this is not a purely motoric process.

The literature generally describes this interaction as one stroke being anchored on the other; I will call it midpoint anchoring. As Nihei (1983) recognizes, midpoint anchoring is distinct from what he calls fluid anchoring, also called threading (Thomassen and Tibosch, 1991) or chaining (Myers, 2019), whereby a stroke continues from where the previous left off, without lifting the writing instrument, as in complex strokes in Chinese. Like midpoint anchoring, chaining seems quite natural, appearing in the drawing habits even of very young children; the high frequency of both the T and L configurations in Changizi, Zhang, Ye, and Shimojo (2006) may thus have some motoric motivation as well.

Another type of natural interaction is what Nihei (1983) calls fixed anchoring, where two strokes begin at the same point, something that children find particularly easy to do. Given the rightward and downward stroke directions, in Chinese components the shared starting point is always at the upper left, as in (27).

## (27) 厂广二门几又口

The high frequency of the X configuration suggests that stroke crossing should also be relatively simple, but as the above studies report, young children sometimes draw it as if it were a set of four strokes with a common starting point (i.e., using fixed anchoring). Its intermediate difficulty may arise from needing to coordinate two stroke midpoints rather than relying on a shared starting point, as in fixed anchoring, or identifying just one midpoint to use as the starting point for the other, as in midpoint anchoring.

The most difficult stroke interaction is the one Nihei (ibid.) calls ballistic, where one stroke ends at another. As with firing a projectile, here the writer/sketcher must plan the initial action in order to achieve an end goal, something that young children have particular trouble with. Its relative rarity in Chinese components, as suggested by (26) above, is
thus expected (and in the next section I will argue that it is even rarer than it seems).

By way of summary, Table 1 lists various types of motoric stroke interactions with associated visual configurations and some Chinese examples.

<table><caption>TABLE 1. Basic stroke interactions</caption><thead><tr><td>Interaction</td><td>Configuration</td><td>Example</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>None</td><td>I</td><td>二</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed anchoring</td><td>L</td><td>厂</td></tr><tr><td>Chaining</td><td>L</td><td>し</td></tr><tr><td>Midpoint anchoring</td><td>T</td><td>丁</td></tr><tr><td>Crossing</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Ballistic</td><td>T</td><td>⊥</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.2.2. Basic Principles of Stroke Group Structure

If stroke groups have syllable structure, their “nuclei” must be obligatory like those in spoken and signed syllables. If we adopt this hypothesis, then, we must view the smallest logically possible stroke groups, namely isolated (non-contacting) strokes, as consisting solely of a nucleus. This conclusion, consistent with the discussion in earlier sections, also links up with the observation that isolated full (non-dot) strokes tend to share axis with the nearest full stroke, as illustrated in (28): total assimilation in spoken and signed languages seems never to occur syllable-internally, only across syllables (e.g., vowel harmony).

#### (28) 二儿ㄉㄢㄉ川

By the same reasoning, parallel strokes should represent separate syllables even if they make contact with the same stroke, as in (29). This too is consistent with the above discussion, where we saw that stroke contact of this type does not prevent curving or prominence, both diagnostics for separate stroke groups.

#### (29) 干土王夫牛両両両両

In spoken syllables, nuclei are obligatory because they represent sonority peaks, making them a plausible candidate for the articulatory target of the entire syllable gesture. In articulatory experiments on American English speech, for instance, Browman and Goldstein (1988) found that the temporal duration remained relatively constant from the midpoint of an onset cluster to the nucleus in the same syllable, regard-
less of the size of the cluster. Speakers thus seem to work with a mental clock that is defined in terms of syllable-internal gestures. Nevertheless, as has often been noted (e.g., Prince and Smolensky, 2004), syllable inventories and prosodic processes both favor onsets and disfavor nucleus-initial syllables. It thus seems reasonable to suppose that when an onset is present (as it is most of the time), the timing of the nucleus depends on it rather than the other way around.

In T configurations, the onset analog would then be the stroke whose midpoint provides the starting point for the other, the analog of the nucleus. Only if the writer intends to write just one stroke is it conceptualized as a nucleus (this conceptual flip is possible because of the lack of intrinsic sonority in strokes). These analyses are sketched in (30), with O for onset and N for nucleus.

$$ (30) \quad \begin{array}{ll} \text{a.} & \text{---} \uparrow \\ \text{b.} & \text{N ON (O = ---, N = ---)} \end{array} $$

The proposed contrast can be made more explicit, as in Figure 2, using an autosegmental syllable model that includes moras. Here these structures are interpreted as stating that in T configurations, the location of the nucleus (μ) depends on that of the syllable as a whole (σ), which is assigned by the onset if present.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2. Autosegmental analyses of isolated stroke and T configuration</figcaption></figure>

Since character components, as grammatical entities, are amodal, uniting motoric and visual aspects, we should not require that the sequence of strokes or stroke groups in analyses like Figure 2 must correspond with stroke order. Instead the order should be whatever makes the overall analysis the simplest. Thus even though the strokes and stroke order in the components in (31) are identical (left diagonal first), the strokes differ in interaction roles (i.e., which one provides the midpoint anchor). This allows us to express the contrast as in Figure 3, using the same strokes and abstract syllable structures, but different autosegmental links (the contrast is clearer in typefaces that mimic handwriting). As Myers (2019, Section 3.6.2) argues for numerous other reasons, stroke order should be considered part of the articulatory phonetics of character grammar, not part of character phonology per se (e.g., stroke order is surprisingly variable both within and across writers, while character form is much more stable).
(31) a. 人

b. 入

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3. Autosegmental analyses of contrasting diagonal T configurations</figcaption></figure>

The autosegmental framework allows us to express other types of
stroke interactions as well. In contrast to the T configuration, the X
configuration involves two strokes that share a single location. Concep-
tually, in producing a cross as in (32a), the writer is trying to place two
strokes, with distinct axis features, in the same place. This situation
may be codified as in (32b), as a single syllable with a short nucleus (N
rather than NN), or more explicitly as in Figure 4, with the two strokes
linked to a single mora.

(32) a. +

b. N

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4. Autosegmental analysis of X configuration (crossed strokes)</figcaption></figure>

Since parallel strokes can only appear in separate syllables, in more
complex stroke combinations each T and X configuration must form
a separate syllable as well, with the syllabic affiliations of the shared
stroke(s) indicated through autosegmental association lines. The com-
ponents in (33a), then, have the syllable structures represented linearly
in (33b) (with syllable boundaries marked “.”), and autosegmentally in
Figure 5. The cross-syllable association lines are dotted to indicate that
they do not actually intersect with the others; each syllable is meant to
be lying in its own plane.

(33) a. 丌 卍 干 丼

b. ON.ON N.N ON.N N.N.N.N
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5. Autosegmental analyses of combinations of T and X configurations</figcaption></figure>

One nice consequence of the analysis so far is that by treating the midpoint-anchored stroke in T configurations and crossed strokes in X configurations as nuclei (linked to moras), it puts them in the same class as isolated strokes. As we saw in section 2.3, strokes that are free at their endpoint (i.e., crossed or midpoint-anchored strokes) are subject to prominence and curving, just like isolated strokes. If prominence is an analog of stress and curving an analog of vowel reduction, it makes sense that both would be consistently realizable on the analog of the nucleus.

While midpoint anchoring involves a stroke-on-stroke dependency and crossing involves a symmetrical inter-stroke relationship, strokes sharing a fixed anchor refer to a point that is external to both. It is thus possible to see such strokes as sharing a single empty onset slot (for empty onsets in spoken language, see Marlett and Stemberger, 1983). This would make both strokes themselves into nuclei, as sketched in (34) and Figure 6, with the empty set symbol representing the featureless onset.

(34) a. $Γ$
b. ON.ON

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6. Autosegmental analysis of fixed anchoring</figcaption></figure>

Even though the horizontal stroke in (34) starts from the vertical stroke, the latter is not itself an onset, but the nucleus (linked to a mora) in a separate syllable. This is why it may be curved (i.e., undergo a prosodic process akin to vowel reduction). A stroke undergoing left edge curving may also be crossed, as in (35), because crossing strokes are also moraic.
(35) a. 十卅
b. 力九尹

However, if curved strokes are nuclei, they should be incapable of serving as the onset for midpoint anchoring, since onsets are linked directly to the syllable node and have no mora. Yet as the examples in (36) suggest, T configurations do sprout from curved strokes in a small number of components.

(36) 片月

Perhaps in such rare cases, the leftmost stroke is both the nucleus of one syllable and the onset for another, a situation that can indeed arise in spoken languages (see, e.g., Dell and Elmedlaoui, 1988). This would result in the linear analysis for two of the strokes in (37a) given in (37b), with the autosegmental structure as in Figure 7. Since curving itself is partly lexicalized (see section 2.3), perhaps this unusual syllable structure is as well.

(37) a. 片() - portion)
b. N.ON...

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7. Autosegmental analysis of curved stroke offering midpoint anchoring</figcaption></figure>

The next stroke interaction to consider is the chaining of simple strokes to form a complex stroke, as in (38) (these are all of the complex strokes that are also considered to be components by Chuang and Teng, 2009). Since complex strokes are still single strokes, they should be analyzed as comprising a single stroke group. The simplest analysis would thus be to treat all simple segments within a complex stroke as part of the nucleus, that is, as a separate mora.

(38) a. レクレ
b. 乙儿乙

This analysis is illustrated linearly in (39) and autosegmentally in Figure 8. Note that by giving each stroke segment its own mora, we
capture the observation that complex strokes tend to take up more
space than the I, T, and X configurations, all of which are analyzed as
monomoraic.

(39) a. ↕
b. NNN

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 8. Autosegmental analysis of a complex stroke</figcaption></figure>

Although trimoraic syllables like that posited above are rare in spo-
ken languages, they are not impossible, and such complex strokes tend
to be disfavored in Chinese character components as well; Chuang and
Teng (2009) report lower type frequencies for the components in (38b)
as compared with those in (38a).

The last stroke interaction to analyze is the ballistic interaction,
where one stroke ends at another. Recall that this interaction is hard
for children to learn and relatively rare in character components. If the
ease and high frequency of fixed and midpoint anchoring relate to onsets
being unmarked in syllables, the markedness of the ballistic interaction
suggests that it may relate to the most marked syllable component, the
coda, which is as disfavored in languages as the onset is favored (e.g.,
Prince and Smolensky, 2004). Crucially, the source of the markedness
seems similar as well: like ballistic strokes, timing the coda properly re-
quires planning ahead. For example, Browman and Goldstein (1988)
found that while American English speakers coordinated the nucleus
with the onset cluster as a whole, each of the individual coda consonants
were coordinated separately with each other.

Not all end stroke contact is coda-like, however. Since the bottom-
most stroke in (40a) undergoes prominence, it must be a separate stroke
group, and thus cannot form the coda for the other strokes, even though
there is a ballistic interaction. A similar conclusion applies in (41), given
the larger size of the right-edge stroke. Such contact is thus posited
to involve cross-syllabic coordination (like cross-syllabic assimilation in
stroke axis), rather than syllable-internal structure. As promised earlier
in section 3.2.1, then, what seem to be ballistic interactions in character
components are often merely closely concatenated but separate stroke
groups.
(40) a. 工
b. ON.N

(41) a. 丿
b. NN.N

By contrast, as noted in section 3.1, the bottommost stroke in (42a) remains short because it is not free on its endpoint. Here, then, we have a plausible candidate for a coda analog, resulting in the syllable-final structure indicated in (42b), with a long nucleus (the complex stroke) plus coda.

(42) a. ロ ( ロー )
b. ...NNC ( ロー )

A spot of bother is presented by the first stroke in this component. Even though the left edge stroke shares a fixed anchor with the complex stroke, a situation that we analyzed above as disyllabic sharing of a single empty onset, examples like that in (43) remind us that this entire complex can be subject to prominence, and thus must comprise a syllable as a whole. This forces us to treat the left edge vertical stroke as an onset, resulting in the analysis in (44), or in autosegmental terms in Figure 9. Perhaps this is justified because the left edge stroke is also unusual in another way: its endpoint defines the starting point of another stroke, but since they are not produced in sequence, these two strokes are not chained.

(43) 串
(44) a. 口
b. ONNC

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 9. Autosegmental analysis of ballistic stroke in a box-shaped stroke group</figcaption></figure>

Note that in Figure 9 I have linked the coda directly to the syllable node. This differs from the more common autosegmental representation for closed syllables (as in Figure 1 above), where the coda is linked to a mora (e.g., Hayes, 1989). Nevertheless, direct linking of the coda to the syllable node has also been argued for in spoken phonology (e.g., Tranel, 1991). While this representation implies that the nucleus and
coda do not form a constituent (the rime), syllables need not have rimes; sign languages have syllables (Sandler, 2008; Sandler and Lillo-Martin, 2006) but I am unaware of any argument that they have rimes, and even some spoken languages provide at best only weak evidence for them (Berg and Koops, 2010).

Moreover, directly linking the coda to the syllable is needed here to avoid ambiguities in interpretation. We have already decided that each of the simple segments in a complex stroke links to its own mora, so giving the coda a mora here would falsely imply a three-segment complex stroke. Alternatively, letting it share the mora with a nuclear stroke would falsely imply crossed strokes. This analytical situation ultimately arises from the lack of intrinsic stroke sonority, which forces the moraic structure itself to do all of the work.

The non-moraic coda hypothesis does have some advantages, however. One is that it helps capture the fact that the ballistic stroke not only ends at another stroke, but also starts at another, namely the leftmost stroke that we analyze as the onset. By linking both the onset and coda to the same node ($\sigma$) we imply that they share a location as well. Indeed, as we saw earlier in section 3.2.1, ballistic strokes often start at a leftmost vertical stroke; further examples are given in (45).

### (45) 尸日目月

Another advantage is that the non-moraic coda keeps the stroke group small, as with the I, T, and X configurations, in contrast to the polymoraic representations posited for the larger complex strokes. This point is illustrated by the compact components in (46).

(46) a. 日 目
b. ONNCC ONNCCC

The analysis also merges naturally with the one given above for curved strokes that act as midpoint anchors. As shown in the autosegmental representation of (47) given in Figure 10, it is straightforward to indicate that this stroke performs double duty as nucleus of one syllable and onset for another.

(47) a. 月
b. N.ONNCC

The autosegmental analysis of stroke sharing introduced in (33) and Figure 5 also allows us to treat the two box-shaped structures in (48) as separate stroke groups, necessary to explain how only the lower one is subject to prominence; see Figure 11.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 10. Autosegmental analysis of a ballistic stroke starting from a curved stroke</figcaption></figure>

(48) a. 馒 (as in 官)
b. ONNC.ONNC

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 11. Autosegmental analysis of onset stroke shared by two box-shaped stroke groups</figcaption></figure>

The coda analysis also seems appropriate for box-like structures con-
taining a ballistic stroke but missing one or more sides. For example, the
top portion of the component in (49a) seems analyzable as indicated by
the underlined portion of (49b), where the onset is the curved verti-
cal stroke at the left, the nucleus is the horizontal stroke starting from
it (completing the T configuration), and the coda is the short vertical
stroke at the upper right that makes endpoint contact.

(49) a. 片
b. N.ONC.ONN

Ballistic strokes may appear in onsetless syllables as well, however.
The cases in (50) can be analyzed in terms of cross-syllable contact be-
tween two nuclei rather than a coda (as in (40) and (41) above). Namely,
in (50a) and (50b) the contacted stroke is prominent (lengthened) and
reduced (curved), respectively, both hallmarks of independent stroke
groups.

(50) a. 鼠止
b. 非
The cases in (51), however, do not show clear signs of the contacted stroke being in a separate syllable. For example, the character in (51c) contains two Chuang and Teng (2009) components, where that on the left (which lacks a Unicode entry) has two ballistic strokes ending at a vertical stroke and that on the right has one ballistic stroke running leftward and downward into the vertical segment of a complex stroke. In none of these cases is there clear prominence or curving in the stroke providing endpoint contact.

(51) a. ㄋ白

b. 雪 (bottom component)

c. 北

In such cases, linking the coda strokes to the syllable node does not imply that it starts at the onset, simply because there is no onset, as indicated in (52) and Figure 12.

(52) a. 北 (left component)

b. NCC

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 12. Autosegmental analysis of ballistic strokes without starting point contact</figcaption></figure>

It should be clear by now that our neat inventory of basic stroke interactions cannot hope to cover all of the attested interactions that arise as the number and complexity of strokes increases. Changizi, Zhang, Ye, and Shimojo (2006) managed to restrict the scope of their investigation to just 36 visual configurations by imposing a maximum of three strokes, and then restricted it further by considering topology rather than geometry. By contrast, the Chuang and Teng (2009) inventory has 441 geometrically distinct Chinese character components containing up to 17 strokes.

Unsurprisingly, then, from now on the analytical problems and attempted technical fixes come fast and furious, so before continuing I offer the reader a last peaceful moment in the form of Table 2, which summarizes the proposed syllable structures for various types of simple stroke interactions.
<table><caption>TABLE 2. Basic stroke interactions</caption><thead><tr><th>Interaction</th><th>Example</th><th>Syllable structure</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>None</td><td>二</td><td>N.N</td></tr><tr><td>Fixed anchoring</td><td>厂</td><td>ON.ON</td></tr><tr><td>Chaining</td><td>し</td><td>NN</td></tr><tr><td>Midpoint anchoring</td><td>丁</td><td>ON</td></tr><tr><td>Crossing</td><td>又</td><td>N</td></tr><tr><td>Ballistic to prominent/curved stroke</td><td>⊥</td><td>N.N</td></tr><tr><td>Ballistic to non-prominent/curved stroke</td><td>口</td><td>...NC</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.2.3. More Complex Stroke Interactions

Space (fortunately) precludes a complete analysis for each and every character component, and the complex ways in which strokes can interact (unfortunately) precludes a particularly coherent overview. Thus I will merely illustrate a few cases, from what seems to me to be the least to the most problematic.

I start with crossed complex strokes, as in (53). At first it seems it may be hard to specify the precise location of the crossing, but as seen in Figure 13, we can easily code the two complex strokes via bimoraic syllables and the crossing via association lines linking the appropriate simple strokes to a single mora.

(53) a. 也
b. NN>NN

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 13. Autosegmental analysis of crossed complex strokes</figcaption></figure>

A slightly trickier situation arises in (54), where a complex stroke not only crosses another stroke, but also shares its starting point. Consistent with the analyses in section 3.2.3, the two strokes must thus also share an empty onset slot, as in Figure 14.

(54) a. 又
b. ON.ONN
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 14. Autosegmental analysis of crossing strokes sharing a starting point</figcaption></figure>

In section 3.2.3 we saw that left edge curved strokes, hypothesized to be syllable nuclei, can nevertheless provide the starting point in mid-point anchoring, forcing us to treat them as onsets as well. A similar ambiguity in syllable position arises with complex strokes. Even though each segment in a complex stroke is moraic, it is still possible for a segment to offer midpoint anchoring, as in (55) (the third example contains two Chuang and Teng, 2009, components because the relevant component has no Unicode entry). Autosegmentally this can be handled by doubly linking the segment that serves both as anchor and as part of the complex nucleus, as in Figure 15.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 15. Autosegmental analysis of midpoint anchoring from a complex stroke</figcaption></figure>

As we already saw in the previous section, some of the greatest challenges come from the analysis of ballistic strokes, since while by definition they end at another stroke, they typically also start from another stroke, making their position within the stroke group analytically ambiguous. As illustrated in (56), the starting point may even be the first segment of a complex stroke.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Conveniently, the prominence of the bottom stroke in (56a) shows that it is a separate stroke group. We have also already just seen that
midpoint anchoring from one segment of a complex stroke can be analyzed as an onset-nucleus structure (here repeated twice, one per internal stroke). All of these considerations lead to the linear analysis in (57) and autosegmental representation in Figure 16. Aside from the highly counterintuitive idea that such a small component could really contain so many stroke groups, there is no technical problem yet.

(57) a. 亅 b. ON.ONN.ON.ON.N

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 16. Autosegmental analysis of midpoint anchoring from a complex stroke</figcaption></figure>

The component in (56b), however, appears to be a single box-shaped stroke group. We are thus obliged to somehow represent the anchoring of the two internal strokes from the top right complex stroke while still recognizing them as ballistically ending at the bottommost stroke within the same syllable. While it is trivial to give it the same linear analysis as we did for its rotated counterpart, as in (58), the autosegmental representation in Figure 17 seems to falsely imply that two of the coda strokes start at the left stroke (since they all directly link to the syllable node), whereas actually only one of them does (namely the stroke forming the box bottom). Perhaps we could stipulate that if onsets and codas are identical stroke types they cannot be interpreted as linked together; stroke contact requires a difference in axis. Even so, this analysis has the additional counterintuitive effect of giving this component a totally different structure from the virtually identical component in (57).

(58) a. 四 目 b. ONNCCC ONNCCC

A particularly striking example of the challenges posed by my analysis of ballistic strokes as coda-like is the component in (59a), which contains two horizontal ballistic strokes linking two vertical ones (plus a fifth forming the bottom of the box). The T configuration at the top is readily analyzed as ON, but simply concatenating all five ballistic strokes as codas, as in (59b), fails to indicate which stroke links with which. Nevertheless, given that the lower box seems prominent as a whole, the
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 17. Autosegmental analysis of ballistic stroke in a box-shaped stroke group</figcaption></figure>

treatment here of it as a single stroke group does at least capture that prosodic observation. Moreover, the oddity of this type of situation is correlated with its rarity in the Chuang and Teng (2009) inventory.

(59) a. 面

b. ON.NNCCCCC

The component family in (60) raises further problems (those in (60e-f) are not in the Chuang and Teng, 2009, component inventory but are included for completeness).

(60) a. 田

b. 由

c. 甲

d. 申

e. 由

f. 甲

The box seems to form a single stroke group because in (60b-c) it is the target of bottommost prominence, with the extended stroke as a separate stroke group. That makes the internal horizontal stroke part of the same stroke group as the box, and thus a coda, as in earlier analyses. The problem is that this stroke is also crossed, which means it is moraic, but codas cannot be moraic (or else the autosegmental representations become ambiguous, as discussed earlier).

One way to respond to this challenge is to start with the supposition that the box-shaped stroke group is actually that in (61a), as analyzed in (61b), whereas the central vertical stroke is a separate stroke group in all cases, including in (60a). The crossing problem can then be dealt with by treating crossing here as a mere accident of the central vertical stroke's starting and ending points, rather than being something represented phonologically. This seems counterintuitive given the high salience of the cross, but if the coiners of (60e-f) were able to decompose it, doing so is not impossible.
(61) a. 曰

b. ONNCC

This now merely leaves us with the challenge of representing the vertical stroke's position within the formal straightjacket I have set myself. Across the components in (60), the starting point of this stroke is variously above the box, at the top of the box, or at the central horizontal stroke, which can be represented respectively as an onsetless syllable, as a syllable with the onset in the first segment of a complex stroke (as in (55) and Figure 15 above), and as a syllable with the onset at the box's first coda stroke. The ending point of the vertical stroke is variously at the central horizontal stroke, at the bottom of the box, or below the box, which can be represented respectively as sharing a coda with the box's first coda stroke, as sharing a coda with the box's final coda stroke, or as being a codaless open syllable. None of these possibilities raises any fatal problems, as sketched in (62) and (63), with subscripts to indicate the cross-syllable autosegmental linking. Figure 18 spells out the idea for one component.

(62) a. 田

b. ON<sub>1</sub>NCC<sub>2</sub>.O<sub>1</sub>NC<sub>2</sub>

甲
ON<sub>1</sub>NCC.O<sub>1</sub>N

甲
ONNC<sub>1</sub>C.O<sub>1</sub>N

(63) a. 申

b. ONNCC.N

由
ONNCC<sub>1</sub>.NC<sub>1</sub>

由
ONNC<sub>1</sub>C.NC<sub>1</sub>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 18. Autosegmental analysis of ballistic stroke in a box-shaped stroke group</figcaption></figure>

Another challenging component family is that in (64). In the first component, the lower complex stroke shares its start with the ballistic stroke, which can be expressed via a shared autosegmental link between the first stroke group's coda and the second stroke group's onset, as indicated by the coindexing; note that neither onset nor coda is moraic, so there is no risk of misinterpreting the shared link as stroke crossing. In the second component, a single onset is shared between the upper and lower complex strokes. In the third component, neither complex stroke has an onset; the ballistic stroke does, but the representational scheme does not allow me to represent it unambiguously so I leave it out, as I
did with the crossed strokes in the previous component family. While hardly an ideal solution, at least all of these representations show the lower complex stroke as forming a separate stroke group, allowing it to be subject to bottommost prominence.

(64) a. 己 己 己
b. NNC₁.O₁NN O₁NNC.O₁NN NNC.NN

I end my survey with an analysis of the most complex component in the Chuang and Teng (2009) inventory, that in (65a). Figure 19 indicates schematically which component parts correspond to which of the stroke groups listed in (65b).

(65) a. 龟
b. ONN.NNC.NNC.NNC.ONNCC.ONC.N.ONN

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 19. Sketch of a stroke group analysis of the most complex component</figcaption></figure>

While no utterly fatal problems have arisen in this survey, we have needed a plethora of special devices (if not special pleading), some of which have yielded counterintuitive results. More importantly, I have yet to provide any argument that any of this matters to actual readers or writers. Collecting proper psycholinguistic data will have to await the proverbial future research, but in the next section I do examine one possible psychological implication of the stroke-group-as-syllable analysis.

3.3. Stroke Groups and Menzerath's Law

A demonstration that stroke groups, as I have identified them, conform to the Menzerath-Altmann law would be consistent with the claim that they influenced the evolution of characters into their modern forms. The modeling work here is based on syllabic analyses for all 441 components of Chuang and Teng (ibid.)<fnref n="2" />. The analyses are based on component forms as they appear in Chuang and Teng's regular (handwriting

<footnote n="2">2. The data are available at https://osf.io/nbhcm/.</footnote>
style) typeface. A variety of analytical decisions are scattered throughout, and I am not entirely sure if I have applied all of my principles completely consistently, but hopefully this merely added noise and not bias.

If stroke groups have some validity, we expect that within character components, there should be an inverse power relationship between mean stroke group complexity and the number of stroke groups. To test this, I operationalized stroke group complexity as the number of O, N, C segments in the linear syllabic analyses, where N represents a mora and O and C represent simple strokes without a mora. Autosegmental lines are not counted.

Following Prün (1994), Figure 20 shows the nonlinear best-fit for the simplified Menzarath equation in (66a), with the model parameters and other statistical values shown in (66b).

$$ (66) \quad \text{a. } y = ax^b, b < 0 $$

$$ \text{b. } a = 2.44, b = -0.19, p_b < .0001, R^2 = .82 $$

The coefficients are of the expected signs (positive *a*, negative *b*) and statistically significant; here I highlight *p*, the *p* value for *b*, which confirms that this is an inverse power function (against the null hypothesis *b* = 0). However, the data points are much more scattered than in other applications of Menzerath's law to Chinese script. Again following Prün (ibid., p. 149), I quantified model fit using the coefficient of determination *R*² (Prün labels it *D*). As shown in (66b), this value is relatively high but still far below the *R*² = .99 reported by Prün (ibid.) for component complexity in characters.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 20. Mean stroke group complexity as a function of the number of stroke groups</figcaption></figure>
While the less than perfect fit may relate to inconsistencies in how stroke groups were identified, could the fact that there is any fit at all be dismissed as confounding with other factors known to obey Menzerath's law? In particular, Bohn (1998) demonstrated an inverse power relationship between mean stroke complexity and stroke number within character components. In my analyses, isolated and crossed simple strokes are the simplest possible stroke groups (N), whereas complex strokes are necessarily more complex (NN...). Thus it could be that Figure 20 merely recapitulates Bohn's analysis in an obscured form.

The ideal way to rule this out would be to build a model that also includes stroke number and stroke complexity as interacting factors, but statistical interaction is only well defined for (generalized) linear models, not the nonlinear model that I used to fit the power law. However, it is still possible (as well as conceptually simpler and less assumption-prone) to build separate nonlinear models for multiple subsets of the data, in each of which stroke number and complexity are held constant. If Menzerath's law still applies in each of the subsets, this cannot be ascribed to stroke number or complexity.

This I did for eight subsets of components with two to five strokes, where the mean stroke complexity (as defined by Bohn, 1998, where hooks add complexity) was either 1 or higher than 1 (ranging from 1.2 to 3); outside these ranges the subsets were too small, falling below ten data points per subset. These subsets still cover the majority of the total data (over 65%). As can be seen in Table 3, all of the subsets are consistent with an inverse power law, though not all are statistically significant or show very strong model fits.

<table><caption>TABLE 3. Menzerath's law across subsets of character components</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="4">Mean stroke complexity = 1</th><th colspan="4">Mean stroke complexity > 1</th></tr><tr><th colspan="4">Stroke number</th><th colspan="4">Stroke number</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a</td><td>1.64</td><td>2.84</td><td>3.88</td><td>2.51</td><td>3.00</td><td>3.76</td><td>5.06</td><td>6.06</td></tr><tr><td>b</td><td>-0.57</td><td>-0.97</td><td>-1.02</td><td>-0.44</td><td>-0.56</td><td>-0.84</td><td>-0.84</td><td>-0.86</td></tr><tr><td>p<sub>b</sub></td><td>0.013</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.30</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.76</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results thus add some (weak) support for the claim that stroke groups may be psychologically real, or at least were while characters were evolving.

## 4. Conclusions

There is no doubt that Chinese character components and strokes are psychologically real levels of structure. It is also relatively easy to see
components as analogous to morphemes and strokes as analogous to phonological segments. The evidence for an intermediate syllable-like level, the stroke group, is nowhere near as strong, but this initial exploration has nevertheless uncovered some interesting patterns. Compared with the list of syllable properties in (19) above, the stroke group scorecard in (67) suggests that there may indeed be some genuine similarities with syllables, as marked in italics.

(67) a. In a stroke group, there is no analog to intrinsic sonority.

b. There is as yet no evidence that stroke groups are perceptually salient.

c. *Stroke groups are targeted by analogs to foot-level processes like stress.*

d. *Articulatory gestures are more closely coordinated within than across stroke groups.*

e. *Stroke groups may have analogs to obligatory nuclei, favored onsets, and disfavored codas.*

f. *Stroke groups compete for space in character components (Menzerath's law).*

Future research can take many possible directions. The most fundamental question is whether the syllable analogy is really needed to preserve whatever is genuine in the stroke group hypothesis. After all, even in sign language phonology there have been arguments that what most linguists consider to be syllables may actually be more analogous to complex segments (Channon, 2003). Another issue is how to extend the present analysis to the many writing systems that, unlike Chinese script, have strongly curved strokes, including circles, semicircles, and loops; among these are systems historically derived from Chinese, like Japanese hiragana. Previous analyses of Roman letters have considered curved strokes (e.g., Watt, 1980; Primus, 2004), and van Sommers (1984) includes a chapter-length discussion of the production of curvilinear forms. Still, circle-like strokes do complicate matters, particularly since they allow two strokes to contact each other in more than one place, a possibility we did not have to worry about when analyzing Chinese script. In my opinion, however, most urgently needed is the collection of psycholinguistic evidence that writers and readers actually do learn or process characters in terms of stroke groups.

Regardless of how research progresses, I hope this preliminary study has at least revealed the rich and challenging nature of a still underexplored aspect of writing systems: the precise formulation of stroke interactions.
References

Altmann, Gabriel (1980). "Prolegomena to Menzerath's law." In: *Glot-tometrika* 2.2, pp. 1-10.

Aronoff, Mark (1994). *Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Beckman, Mary E and Jan Edwards (1990). "Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency." In: vol. 1. Papers in laboratory phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-178.

Behr, Wolfgang (2006). "'Homosomatic juxtaposition' and the problem of 'syssemantic' (buiyi) characters." In: *Écriture chinoise: données, usages et représentations*. Ed. by Françoise Bottéro and Redouane Djamouri. Paris: École des hautes études en sciences sociales, Centre de recherches linguistiques sur l'Asie orientale, pp. 75-114.

Berent, Iris and Amanda Dupuis (2017). "The unbounded productivity of (sign) language: Evidence from the Stroop task." In: *The Mental Lexicon* 12.3, pp. 309-341.

Berg, Thomas and Christian Koops (2010). "The interplay of left-and right-branching effects: A phonotactic analysis of Korean syllable structure." In: *Lingua* 120.1, pp. 35-49.

Bohn, Hartmut (1998). *Quantitative Untersuchungen der modernen chinesischen Sprache und Schrift*. Hamburg: Kovač.

Browman, Catherine P. and Louis Goldstein (1988). "Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology." In: *Phonetica* 45.2-4, pp. 140-155.

Changizi, Mark A. et al. (2006). "The structures of letters and symbols throughout human history are selected to match those found in objects in natural scenes." In: *The American Naturalist* 167.5, E117-E139.

Channon, Rachel Elizabeth (2003). "Signs are single segments: Phono-logical representations and temporal sequencing in ASL and other sign languages." PhD thesis. College Park: University of Maryland.

Chen, Heng and Haitao Liu (2019). "A quantitative probe into the hier-archical structure of written Chinese." In: *Proceedings of the First Workshop on Quantitative Syntax (Quasy, SyntaxFest 2019)*, pp. 25-32.

Chen, Jenn-Yeu and Rong-Ju Cherng (2013). "The proximate unit in Chinese handwritten character production." In: *Frontiers in Psychology* 4. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00517.

Chuang, D.M. [莊德明] and H.Y. Teng [鄧賢瑛] (2009). 漢字構形資料庫的研發與應用 [Research and development of Chinese characters information database and its application]. 臺北市 [Taipei]: 中央研究院 [Academia Sinica].

Crasborn, Onno A, Els van der Kooij, and Johan Ros (2012). "On the weight of phrase-final prosodic words in a sign language." In: *Sign Language & Linguistics* 15.1, pp. 11-38.
Cutler, Anne and Charles Clifton (1984). "The use of prosodic information in word recognition." In: *Attention and performance X: Control of language processes*. Ed. by H. Bouma and D. G. Bouwhuis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 183-196.

Dell, François and Mohamed Elmedlaoui (1988). "Syllabic consonants in Berber: Some new evidence." In: *Journal of African Languages and Linguistics* 10.1, pp. 1-17.

Evertz, Martin (2018). *Visual prosody: The graphematic foot in English and German*. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Feldman, Laurie Beth and Witina WT Siok (1999). "Semantic radicals contribute to the visual identification of Chinese characters." In: *Journal of Memory and Language* 40.4, pp. 559-576.

Fujiwara, Yoshi, Yasuhiro Suzuki, and Tomohiko Morioka (2004). "Network of words." In: *Artificial Life and Robotics* 7.4, pp. 160-163.

Goodnow, Jacqueline J and Rochelle A Levine (1973). "'The grammar of action': Sequence and syntax in children's copying." In: *Cognitive Psychology* 4.1, pp. 82-98.

Haralambous, Yannis (2013). "New perspectives in Sinographic language processing through the use of character structure." In: *International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics*. Vol. 7816. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 201-217.

Hayes, Bruce (1989). "Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology." In: *Linguistic Inquiry* 20.2, pp. 253-306.

Hue, Chih-Wei (2003). "Number of characters a college student knows." In: *Journal of Chinese Linguistics* 31.2, pp. 300-339.

Ladd, D Robert (2014). *Simultaneous structure in phonology*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levelt, Willem JM, Ardi Roelofs, and Antje S Meyer (1999). "A theory of lexical access in speech production." In: *Behavioral and Brain Sciences* 22, pp. 1-38.

Li, Jianyu and Jie Zhou (2007). "Chinese character structure analysis based on complex networks." In: *Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications* 380, pp. 629-638.

Lu, Qin et al. (2002). "Decomposition for ISO/IEC 10646 ideographic characters." In: *Proceedings of Conference on Computational Linguistics 2002*.

Marlett, Stephen A and Joseph Paul Stemberger (1983). "Empty consonants in Seri." In: *Linguistic Inquiry* 14.4, pp. 617-639.

McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (1998). "Prosodic morphology." In: *The handbook of morphology*. Ed. by A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 283-305.

Menzerath, Paul (1954). *Die Architektonik des deutschen Wortschatzes*. Bonn: Dümmler.

Myers, James (2016). "Knowing Chinese character grammar." In: *Cognition* 147, pp. 127-132.
Myers, James (2019). *The grammar of Chinese characters: Productive knowledge of formal patterns in an orthographic system*. London: Routledge.

(2020). "Grapheme size is processed like stress: Experimental evidence from Chinese script." In: *Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE 2020)*. URL: https://osf.io/y6ajz/ (visited on 2020/09/06).

Myers, James and Jane Tsay (2015). "Trochaic feet in spontaneous spoken Southern Min." In: *Proceedings of the 27th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics*. Vol. 27. 2. Los Angeles: UCLA, pp. 368-387.

Nihei, Yoshiaki (1983). "Developmental change in covert principles for the organization of strokes in drawing and handwriting." In: *Acta Psychologica* 54, pp. 221-232.

Ninio, Anat and Amia Lieblich (1976). "The grammar of action: 'Phrase structure' in children's copying." In: *Child Development* 47.3, pp. 846-850.

Peng, Xuanwei (2017). "Stroke systems in Chinese characters: A systemic functional perspective on simplified regular script." In: *Semitica* 2017.218, pp. 1-19.

Primus, Beatrice (2004). "A featural analysis of the Modern Roman Alphabet." In: *Written Language & Literacy* 7.2, pp. 235-274.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (2004). *Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar*. Malden MA: Blackwell.

Prün, Claudia (1994). "Validity of Menzerath-Altmann's law: Graphic representation of language, information processing systems and synsergetic linguistics." In: *Journal of Quantitative Linguistics* 1.2, pp. 148-155.

Sandler, Wendy (1993). "A sonority cycle in American Sign Language." In: *Phonology* 10.2, pp. 243-279.

(2008). "The syllable in sign language: Considering the other natural language modality." In: *The syllable in speech production*. Ed. by Barbara L. Davis and Krisztina Zajdó. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 379-408.

Sandler, Wendy and Diane Lillo-Martin (2006). *Sign language and linguistic universals*. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Simner, Marvin L. (1981). "The grammar of action and children's printing." In: *Developmental Psychology* 17.6, pp. 866-871.

Slaměníková, Tereza (2018). "On the nature of unmotivated components in modern Chinese characters." In: *Proceedings of Graphemics in the 21st century*. Ed. by Yannis Haralambous. Vol. 1. Grapholinguistics and its applications. Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 209-226.

Smyth, Mary M. (1989). "Visual control of movement patterns and the grammar of action." In: *Acta Psychologica* 70.3, pp. 253-265.

Taft, Marcus and Xiaoping Zhu (1997). "Submorphemic processing in reading Chinese." In: *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition* 23.3, pp. 761-775.
Thomassen, Arnold J.W.M. and Hein J.C.M. Tibosch (1991). "A quantitative model of graphic production." In: *Tutorials in motor neuroscience*. Ed. by G. E. Requin J. Stelmach. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 269-281.

Tranel, Bernard (1991). "CVC light syllables, geminates and moraic theory." In: *Phonology* 8.2, pp. 291-302.

van Sommers, Peter (1984). *Drawing and cognition: Descriptive and experimental studies of graphic production processes*. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

——— (1989). "A system for drawing and drawing-related neuropsychology." In: *Cognitive Neuropsychology* 6.2, pp. 117-164.

Wang, Jason Chia-Sheng (1983). "Toward a generative grammar of Chinese character structure and stroke order." PhD thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison WI.

Wang, Ruiming et al. (2020). "Chinese character handwriting: A large-scale behavioral study and a database." In: *Behavior Research Methods* 52, pp. 82-96.

Wann, John and Ian Nimmo-Smith (1991). "The control of pen pressure in handwriting: A subtle point." In: *Human Movement Science* 10.2-3, pp. 223-246.

Watt, William C (1980). "What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? II: Composition." In: *Ars Semeiotica* 3.1, pp. 3-46.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>
# Viewpoints on the Structural Description of Chinese Characters

Tomohiko Morioka

*Abstract.* This paper is about our viewpoints and methodology concerning the description of the structure of Chinese characters. First, we describe how components can be detected in characters. When a character is used as a component of a compound character and its shape appears without significant change, then the component can be easily identified. However, in many cases, it is not so easy to find the components that build a character out of purely visual features. One of the factors is simplification of the graphic form when characters are assembled out of components. Such a change of glyph form reduces the connection with pronunciation and meaning of the original character and increases the symbolic aspect of the character. It is particularly complicated when multiple components are combined, transformed and demotivated into a symbolic component. Here we discuss these issues with respect to the productivity of components and to the relationships between components and characters.

## 1. Introduction

Most Chinese characters (漢字) can be represented by a combination of components. For example, the character “林” (forest) has the same component “木” (tree) on the left and right, and the character “雲” (cloud) has component “云” (phonetic part) placed under the component “雨” (rain). The structure of Chinese characters, which consists of a combination of components, is not only an abstract expression of its shape, but is also related to its semantic and phonetic values. Therefore, to understand a Chinese character, it is important to find out what components are used, where they are placed in the characters, and how they are combined.

In this paper, such a description of the structure of Chinese character is called a *Hanzi structure description* (漢字構造記述; structure description of Chinese character) (Morioka, 2018b). Various formalisms have been used to describe Hanzi structure. Nowadays a quite widespread formalism is the one of Ideographic Description Sequences (IDS) defined in

Tomohiko Morioka

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

0000-0001-5315-3383

47 Kitashirakawa-Higashioguramachi, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8265, Japan

E-mail: tomo@zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Y. Haralambous (Ed.), *Grapholinguistics in the 21st Century 2020. Proceedings*

Grapholinguistics and Its Applications (ISSN: 2681-8566, e-ISSN: 2534-5192), Vol. 5.

Fluxus Editions, Brest, 2021, pp. 683-712. https://doi.org/10.36824/2020-graf-mori

ISBN: 978-2-9570549-7-8, e-ISBN: 978-2-9570549-9-2
ISO/IEC 10646 (Information technology—Universal Coded Character Set (UCS) 2014). In this paper, we use the IDS formalism to describe Hanzi structure. For example,

- 林 = 木木

- 雲 = 雨云

in IDS.

In these two examples we can easily detect components and infer structure. However, in some cases, the situation is ambiguous, e.g.,

- 旗 = 方 鼎 or 国 际 其?

- 廖 = 月女郎 or 廖女?

How do we detect components and the corresponding structure in such cases?

## 2. Etymological View

When a character is used as a component of a compound character and its shape is simply inserted into it without significant change, the component can be easily detected via its shape. For example, the character “林” (forest) appears to have two components “木” (tree) arranged side-by-side. Therefore, the structure of “林” can be written as “木林”.

Some structures have been preserved even though the graphic forms of Chinese characters have changed significantly over the centuries. For example, “淋” is an Oracle-bone character corresponding to the modern character “林”. Its structure can be written as “淋水”，which is similar to “木林” (“木” is an Oracle-bone character corresponding to the modern character “木”).

Similarly, the character “雲” (cloud) seems to consist of a component “雨” (rain) placed above a component “云” (the structure being “雨云”). The Oracle-bone character “雲” corresponds to the modern character “雲” as a character, but corresponds to “云” as a component of Hanzi structure.<fnref n="1" /> That is, it is considered that “雲” was formed by adding the semantic component “雨” to distinguish it from morphemes other than “雲” because “云” was used phonetically. Anyway, in this case as well, the components can be easily found just by looking at the characters.

However, in many cases, it is not so easy to find the components of a character just by examining the graphic form of the character. One of the causes of the problem is simplification of the graphic form of components when they are assembled into characters. For example, “隆” (eminent, exalt) looks like a combination of “弓” and “垄” on the left and right,

<footnote n="1">1. In Mainland China, “云” is a simplified Chinese character corresponding to “雲”.</footnote>
namely “□β塿”. However, “□” (Small Seal form (小篆) of Shuowen corresponding to “降”) seems to contain the component “豊” (“生” (be born, living, raw)) inside the component “降” (“降” (fall)), so that the structure could be “□降豊”. Compared to the Small Seal form, Hanzi structure of “降” should be described as “□攺生”. Through this structural analysis, we see that “攺” can be considered as being a simplified form of “降” or a component of it. As described above, there are two approaches to structural description: a structural description based on appearance and a structural description based on etymological explanation.

To adopt the latter position, the etymological knowledge of the Chinese character is required. However, characters with clear etymology are only a small part of the whole, and the etymological data on many characters are unclear or unknown.

### 3. Component Models

Historically, Hanzi structure descriptions (or the underlying analysis) were written for humans. For example, *Shuowen Jiezi* (說文解字; Shuowen), which is considered to be the oldest radical-based Chinese character dictionary, describes the kinds of components that comprise each compound character. The analysis of Hanzi structures in Shuowen is based on the so-called six-categories classification model (六書) and focusing on components motivated by pronunciation and meaning. In this model, each component is considered to be derived from a character, and each component is considered to (partially) inherit the phonetic and/or semantic value of the original character.

In the twentieth century, Tang Lan (唐蘭) proposed a new research approach and the three-categories classification model (三書). He also focused on graphemes that were not motivated by pronunciation or meaning and named them “symbol characters” (記号字; unmotivated characters), see also Slaměníková (2019). Qiu Xigui (裘錫圭) also made great contributions to the study of symbol characters. Tatsuro Asahara (浅原達郎) greatly contributed to Qiu Xigui’s approach by avoiding the classification of components, and by proposing a symbolization (demonstration) model based on a more relational viewpoint (Asahara, 1996). According to this theory, instead of considering the classification of semantic, pronunciation and symbolic components, it is assumed that associative keys connect characters and components motivated by meaning and pronunciation (or act as symbolization filters to remove them).
## 4. Productivity of Components

Based on Tatsuro Asahara's view, when studying the functionality of a component, it is important to focus on the set of characters that have the same component, and to explore this component's features (or the actual state of componentization) as a common tendency among them. In other words, this can be viewed as a position that focuses on the productivity of the components. Tatsuro Asahara gave up explaining the problem of hierarchical componentization, however, by focusing on the productivity of components, it may be possible to identify a composite component acting as a functional unit by analyzing the corpus of the Hanzi structure described visually.

For example, “羸” can be described as “羸女” (etymological decomposition: “羸” is a phonetic component and “女” (woman) is a semantic component) or as: “日旨月女士” (visual decomposition). When searching for characters containing “羸” in the CHISE-IDS Database<fnref n="2" /> (Morioka, 2015), only 50 characters were found in those included in UCS (even limited to components, the following are found: 「羸」「羸」 (「羸」) 「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」「羸」). In contrast, only fifteen characters containing “月女士” were found, all of which contained “羸” or some variant of it. Similarly, in the case of “族,” many characters containing “扌” were found (such as “抗,” “施,” “饰,” “旂,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旅,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “旃,” “Kh”

More detailed results are shown in Tables 1 to 12.

To perform this investigation, we introduced 12 rewriting rules, transforming functional structures into apparent structures. Each table corresponds to one of these rewriting rules:

Rule-111 □□□ LRB ↔ □□ L □ RB

Rule-112 □□□↑ | RB ↔ □□□↑ | □ RB

Rule-121 □□ ATR ↔ □ A □ TR if T is tare

Rule-122 □□ ADR ↔ □ A □□ DR if D is not tare

Rule-131 □□ E ↕ R ↔ □ E □□ ↕ R

Rule-132 □□ EAB ↔ □ E □ AB if A = non ↕

Rule-210 □□□ LRB ↔ □□□ LBR

Rule-411 □□ AEM ↔ □ A □ EM if E is kamae

Rule-414 □□ ABM ↔ □ A □ MB if both A and B are not enclosure

Rule-511 □□□□ LRBA ↔ □□□ LARB

Rule-611 □□□ A □□ LRC ↔ □ A □□ LCR

Rule-612 □□ AM □□ LRC ↔ □ AM □□ LCR

<footnote n="2">2. https://gitlab.chise.org/CHISE/ids</footnote>
Each table consists of five columns. The first column ("char") display the characters, the second column ("structure") its structure, the third column ("component") the components, and the fourth column (pn) indicates the number of character objects in the CHISE character ontology that contain the given component. Columns other than char are divided into upper and lower subrows. The upper subrow contains information about functional structure and the lower one contains information about apparent structure.

The accuracy value is calculated by the following formula:

$$A_x = \frac{N_{px}^2}{N_p(N_{pf} + N_{pa})} \cdot 100.$$

Let $S_{pf}$ be a set of character objects in the CHISE character ontology that have a functional component, and let $N_{pf} = n(S_{pf})$ (pn value of the upper subline).

Similarly, let $S_{pa}$ be a set of character objects in the CHISE character ontology that have a apparent component, and let $N_{pa} = n(S_{pa})$ (pn value of the lower subline).

Let $S_p = S_{pf} \cup S_{pa}$, and let $N_p = n(S_p)$.

Let $x$ of $A_x$ and $N_{px}$ be a variable to select $f$ (functional) or $a$ (apparent).

Note that the CHISE character ontology is based on the Multiple Granularity Hanzi Structure Model (Morioka, 2015; 2018a), so that each number f-pn and a-pn denotes the plural glyph granularity of Chinese characters such as abstract character, unified-glyph, abstract-glyph (字體), etc. In addition, the CHISE character ontology also includes character objects that cannot be unified by the existing CJKV Unified Ideographs of UCS. However, these tables show only representative glyphs and abstract characters of UCS: <character> indicates abstract characters and characters without angle brackets denote representative glyphs. Some abstract components unify multiple abstract characters, which are expressed as: <人/人/人>.

<table><caption>TABLE 1. □□□ LRB ↔ □□ L □ RB (111)</caption><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">描</td><td>□(扌)多</td><td>(扌)</td><td>167</td><td>98.8</td></tr><tr><td>□方□(扌)多</td><td>□(扌)多</td><td>1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">旋</td><td>□(扌)足</td><td>(扌)</td><td>167</td><td>98.8</td></tr><tr><td>□方定</td><td>定</td><td>1</td><td>0.1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>旂</td><td>□(扩)子<br>□方(字)</td><td>(扩)<br>字</td><td>167<br>11</td><td>88.0<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈旃〉</td><td>□(扩)巾<br>□方(布)</td><td>(扩)<br>巾</td><td>167<br>12</td><td>87.0<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>旅</td><td>□(扩)氏<br>□方(辰)</td><td>(扩)<br>辰</td><td>167<br>15</td><td>84.2<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈旅〉</td><td>□(扩)氏<br>□方(辰)</td><td>(扩)<br>辰</td><td>167<br>15</td><td>84.2<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈旋〉</td><td>□(扩)〈定〉<br>□方〈定〉</td><td>(扩)<br>〈定〉</td><td>167<br>18</td><td>81.5<br>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>施</td><td>□(扩)也<br>□方(包)</td><td>(扩)<br>〈包〉</td><td>167<br>88</td><td>42.9<br>11.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈滕〉</td><td>□〈朕〉水<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉□〈先/尖〉水</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈先/尖〉水</td><td>25<br>1</td><td>92.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈勝〉</td><td>□〈朕〉力<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉□〈先/尖〉力</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈先/尖〉力</td><td>25<br>1</td><td>92.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈滕〉, 〈臙〉, 〈臚〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈滕〉</td><td>□〈朕〉衣<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉〈袋〉</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈袋〉</td><td>25<br>2</td><td>85.7<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈滕〉</td><td>□〈朕〉〈纖/系/条〉<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉〈縑〉</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈縑〉</td><td>25<br>7</td><td>61.0<br>4.8</td></tr><tr><td>〈滕〉</td><td>□〈朕〉巾<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉〈卷〉</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈卷〉</td><td>25<br>7</td><td>61.0<br>4.8</td></tr><tr><td>〈滕〉</td><td>□〈朕〉巾<br>□〈月/月/月/月〉〈卷〉</td><td>□〈朕〉<br>□〈卷〉</td><td>25<br>7</td><td>61.0<br>4.8</td></tr><tr><td>騰</td><td>□朕鱼<br>□〈月〉□先鱼</td><td>朕<br>□先鱼</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>騰</td><td>□朕衣<br>□〈月〉□先衣</td><td>朕<br>□先衣</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">騰, 膨</td></tr><tr><td>騰</td><td>□朕田<br>□〈月〉〈畚〉</td><td>朕<br>□畚</td><td>20<br>2</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>騰</td><td>□朕言<br>□(月)□(女)言</td><td>朕<br>□言</td><td>20<br>4</td><td>69.4<br>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>〈鑿〉</td><td>□(敷)虫<br>□男□(女/夕)虫</td><td>〈敷〉<br>□(女/夕)虫</td><td>18<br>1</td><td>89.8<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈鬚〉</td><td>□(敷)貝<br>□男□(女/夕)貝</td><td>〈敷〉<br>□(女/夕)貝</td><td>18<br>2</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈騰〉</td><td>□(朕)足<br>□(月)□(關)足</td><td>〈朕〉<br>□(關)足</td><td>15<br>1</td><td>87.9<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈輪〉</td><td>□(軌)魚<br>□(卓)□(人/入/ヘ)魚</td><td>□(軌) 軌<br>□(人/入/ヘ)魚</td><td>15<br>1</td><td>87.9<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈輪〉, 〈轂〉, 〈軌〉, 〈軚〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軌〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉, 〈軫〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈幹〉</td><td>□(軌)干<br>□(卓)□(伞)</td><td>□(軌) 乾<br>□(伞)</td><td>15<br>10</td><td>36.0<br>16.1</td></tr><tr><td>韛</td><td>□軌火<br>□(卓)□人火</td><td>軌<br>□人火</td><td>15<br>1</td><td>87.9<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>韛</td><td>□軌飛<br>□(卓)□人飛</td><td>軌<br>□人飛</td><td>15<br>1</td><td>87.9<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">韛, 韞, 轩, 轩, 轩, 翰, 幹, 幹</td></tr><tr><td>斡</td><td>□軌戈<br>□(卓)□人戈</td><td>軌<br>□人戈</td><td>15<br>2</td><td>77.9<br>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>斡</td><td>□軌日<br>□(卓)□人日</td><td>軌<br>□人日</td><td>15<br>2</td><td>77.9<br>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>斡</td><td>□軌木<br>□(卓)□人木</td><td>軌<br>□人木</td><td>15<br>2</td><td>77.9<br>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>騰</td><td>□騰黑<br>□月□(女)黑</td><td>騰<br>□(女)黑</td><td>14<br>1</td><td>87.1<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>騰</td><td>□騰魚<br>□月□(女)魚</td><td>騰<br>□(女)魚</td><td>14<br>1</td><td>87.1<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>勝</td><td>□勝巾<br>□月(女)巾</td><td>勝<br>□(女)巾</td><td>14<br>1</td><td>87.1<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>勝</td><td>□勝木<br>□月(女)木</td><td>勝<br>□(女)木</td><td>14<br>2</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>賸</td><td>□臏貝<br>□月□冂貝</td><td>臏<br>□冂貝</td><td>14<br>5</td><td>54.3<br>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>賸</td><td>□臏女<br>□月□冂女</td><td>臏<br>□冂女</td><td>14<br>5</td><td>54.3<br>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>賸</td><td>□臏土<br>□月□冂土</td><td>臏<br>□冂土</td><td>14<br>5</td><td>54.3<br>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>〈隆〉</td><td>□〈降〉生<br>□〈丂〉□〈牵〉生</td><td>〈降〉<br>□〈牵〉生</td><td>13<br>1</td><td>86.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>兟</td><td>□〈𠔃〉臣<br>□𠔃□一臣</td><td>〈𠔃〉<br>□一臣</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈彁〉</td><td>□〈𠔃〉〈萬〉<br>□〈𠔃〉□一〈萬〉</td><td>〈𠔃〉<br>□一〈萬〉</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈癖〉, 〈彁〉, 〈癖〉, 〈兟〉, 〈彂〉</td></tr><tr><td>厭</td><td>□〈𠔃〉矢<br>□〈𠔃〉□一矢</td><td>〈𠔃〉<br>□一矢</td><td>11<br>2</td><td>71.6<br>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈厭〉</td><td>□〈𠔃〉矢<br>□〈𠔃〉□一矢</td><td>〈𠔃〉<br>□一矢</td><td>11<br>2</td><td>71.6<br>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">彁, 〈彁〉</td></tr><tr><td>顛</td><td>□殼米<br>□蕾□艾米</td><td>殼<br>□艾米</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>顒</td><td>□敷貝<br>□男□艾貝</td><td>敷<br>□艾貝</td><td>19<br>2</td><td>81.9<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>顒</td><td>□敷虫<br>□男蚤</td><td>敷<br>蚤</td><td>19<br>4</td><td>68.2<br>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>僚</td><td>□〈彼〉系<br>□〈丂〉□支系</td><td>〈彼〉<br>□支系</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>僚</td><td>□〈彼〉呈<br>□〈丂〉□支呈</td><td>〈彼〉<br>□支呈</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈彼〉月<br>□〈丂〉□支月</td><td>〈彼〉<br>□支月</td><td>9<br>2</td><td>66.9<br>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈佞〉</td><td>□〈仁〉女<br>□〈丂〉〈妄〉</td><td>〈仁〉<br>〈妄〉</td><td>16<br>2</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 2. □□□□ | RB ↔ □□□□ | □ RB (112)</caption><tr><td>佞</td><td>□仁女<br>□〈冫〉〈妄〉</td><td>仁<br>〈妄〉</td><td>16<br>2</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈隠〉</td><td>□〈隠〉〈冫〉<br>□〈冫〉□〈冫〉<br>□〈冫〉□〈冫〉</td><td>〈隠〉<br>□〈冫〉<br>□〈冫〉</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈遡〉</td><td>□〈遡〉山<br>□〈冫〉□〈冫〉山</td><td>〈遡〉<br>□〈冫〉山</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>脩</td><td>□〈攸〉足<br>□〈冫〉□〈女/夕〉足</td><td>〈攸〉<br>□〈女/夕〉足</td><td>54<br>1</td><td>96.4<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈攸〉〈里〉<br>□〈冫〉□〈女/夕〉〈里〉</td><td>〈攸〉<br>□〈女/夕〉〈里〉</td><td>54<br>1</td><td>96.4<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈攸〉貝<br>□〈冫〉□〈女/夕〉貝</td><td>〈攸〉<br>□〈女/夕〉貝</td><td>54<br>2</td><td>93.0<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈攸〉〈糸/糸〉<br>□〈冫〉条</td><td>〈攸〉<br>条</td><td>54<br>2</td><td>93.0<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>修</td><td>□〈攸〉彡<br>□〈冫〉〈参〉</td><td>〈攸〉<br>〈参〉</td><td>54<br>6</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈修〉</td><td>□〈攸〉彡<br>□〈冫〉〈参〉</td><td>〈攸〉<br>〈参〉</td><td>54<br>6</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈攸〉田<br>□〈冫〉〈备〉</td><td>〈攸〉<br>〈备〉</td><td>54<br>16</td><td>59.5<br>5.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈脩〉</td><td>□〈攸〉〈木/木〉<br>□〈冫〉〈条〉</td><td>〈攸〉<br>〈条〉</td><td>54<br>24</td><td>47.9<br>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>脩</td><td>□攸足<br>□〈冫〉□〈女足〉</td><td>攸<br>□女足</td><td>36<br>1</td><td>94.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>條</td><td>□攸系<br>□〈冫〉系</td><td>攸<br>系</td><td>36<br>1</td><td>94.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 3. □□ ATR ↔ □ A □ TR if T is tare (121)</caption><tr><td>脩</td><td>攸貝<br>□□〈女貝〉</td><td>攸<br>□女貝</td><td>36<br>2</td><td>89.8<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>倏</td><td>攸火<br>□□〈火火〉</td><td>攸<br>□火</td><td>9<br>9</td><td>25.0<br>25.1</td></tr><tr><td>翛</td><td>攸田<br>□□〈备〉</td><td>攸<br>备</td><td>9<br>13</td><td>16.7<br>35.0</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">肩</td><td>□户合<br>□〈卜〉□厂合</td><td>户<br>□厂合</td><td>65<br>1</td><td>97.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>□户子<br>□〈卜〉□厂子</td><td>户<br>□厂子</td><td>65<br>1</td><td>97.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>〈肩〉, 〈虞〉, 〈康〉, 〈虐〉</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">皮</td><td>□户又<br>□〈卜〉□厂又</td><td>户<br>□厂又</td><td>65<br>2</td><td>94.1<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>□户又<br>□〈卜〉□厂又</td><td>户<br>□厂又</td><td>65<br>2</td><td>94.1<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">蘆</td><td>□〈蘆〉來<br>□枚虞</td><td>〈蘆〉<br>虞</td><td>26<br>1</td><td>92.7<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>□〈蘆〉貝<br>□枚〈虞〉</td><td>〈蘆〉<br>虞</td><td>26<br>1</td><td>92.7<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>〈蘆〉, 〈鷹〉, 〈鷹〉, 〈蘆〉, 〈鷹〉</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">〈鷲〉</td><td>□〈鷲〉鳥<br>□枚鷲</td><td>〈鷲〉<br>鷲</td><td>26<br>2</td><td>86.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>□〈鷲〉〈來〉<br>□枚〈虞〉</td><td>〈鷲〉<br>虞</td><td>26<br>2</td><td>86.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>〈鷲〉, 〈慾〉, 〈孽〉</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">帬</td><td>□〈帬〉巾<br>□枚〈帯〉</td><td>〈帬〉<br>帯</td><td>26<br>3</td><td>80.4<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>〈斃〉</td><td>□〈斃〉文<br>□枚〈反〉</td><td>〈斃〉<br>〈反〉</td><td>26<br>4</td><td>75.1<br>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>斃</td><td>□〈斃〉水<br>□枚〈床〉</td><td>〈斃〉<br>〈床〉</td><td>26<br>4</td><td>75.1<br>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈斃〉, 〈斃〉, 〈勢〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>□〈聳〉干<br>□枚斥</td><td>〈聳〉<br>斥</td><td>26<br>5</td><td>70.3<br>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈礱〉</td><td>□〈礱〉女<br>□枚□厂女</td><td>〈礱〉<br>□厂女</td><td>26<br>5</td><td>70.3<br>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>釐</td><td>□〈釐〉里<br>□枚厘</td><td>〈釐〉<br>厘</td><td>26<br>6</td><td>66.0<br>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>□〈聳〉牛<br>□枚□厂牛</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□厂牛</td><td>26<br>6</td><td>66.0<br>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈麾〉</td><td>□〈麾〉毛<br>□枚□厂毛</td><td>〈麾〉<br>□厂毛</td><td>26<br>7</td><td>62.1<br>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈勢〉</td><td>□〈勢〉万<br>□枚厉</td><td>〈勢〉<br>厉</td><td>26<br>13</td><td>44.4<br>11.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈釐〉</td><td>□〈釐〉〈里〉<br>□枚〈厘〉</td><td>〈釐〉<br>〈厘〉</td><td>26<br>44</td><td>13.8<br>39.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈斎〉</td><td>□〈斎〉初<br>□〈立/文〉□厂初</td><td>〈斎〉<br>□厂初</td><td>22<br>1</td><td>91.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈廉〉</td><td>□〈廉〉兼<br>□〈立/文〉〈廉〉</td><td>〈廉〉<br>〈廉〉</td><td>22<br>1</td><td>91.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈斎〉, 〈序〉, 〈廉〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈廉〉</td><td>□〈廉〉兼<br>□〈立/文〉□厂兼</td><td>□〈产〉<br>□厂兼</td><td>22<br>2</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈啇〉</td><td>□〈啇〉言<br>□〈立/文〉□厂言</td><td>□〈产〉<br>□厂言</td><td>22<br>6</td><td>61.7<br>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈庚〉</td><td>□〈庚〉火<br>□〈立/文〉灰</td><td>□〈产〉<br>灰</td><td>22<br>24</td><td>22.9<br>27.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈詹〉</td><td>□〈詹〉舍<br>□〈刀/ レ/カ/ク/ク〉□<br>□厂舍</td><td>□〈产〉<br>□厂舍</td><td>21<br>1</td><td>91.1<br>0.2</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 4. □□ADR ↔ □A□DR if D is not tare (122)</caption><tr><td>詹</td><td>□产言<br>□立□厂言</td><td>产<br>□厂言</td><td>11<br>6</td><td>41.9<br>12.5</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>死</td><td>□〈歹〉巳<br>□一□〈夕/夂/夂〉巳</td><td>〈歹〉<br>□〈夕/夂/夂〉巳</td><td>451<br>1</td><td>99.6<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈死〉</td><td>□〈歹〉〈已/己/巳/巳〉<br>□一□〈夕/夂/夂〉〈已/己/巳/巳〉</td><td>〈歹〉<br>□〈夕/夂/夂〉〈已/己/巳/巳〉</td><td>451<br>1</td><td>99.6<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈死〉</td><td>□〈歹〉〈七〉/七〉<br>□一□〈夕/夂/夂〉〈七〉/七〉</td><td>〈歹〉<br>□〈夕/夂/夂〉〈七〉/七〉</td><td>451<br>1</td><td>99.6<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>死</td><td>□歹七<br>□一光</td><td>歹<br>光</td><td>113<br>4</td><td>93.3<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>帛</td><td>□皂 プ<br>□白印</td><td>皂<br>印</td><td>33<br>1</td><td>94.2<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈帛〉</td><td>□〈皂〉 プ<br>□白□〈七〉 プ</td><td>〈皂〉<br>□〈七〉 プ</td><td>23<br>1</td><td>91.8<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>石</td><td>□〈ア〉口<br>□一□〈ノ〉口</td><td>〈ア〉<br>□〈ノ〉口</td><td>22<br>1</td><td>91.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈布〉</td><td>□〈ア〉巾<br>□一□〈ノ〉巾</td><td>〈ア〉<br>□〈ノ〉巾</td><td>22<br>1</td><td>91.5<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>瘕</td><td>□寛蔓<br>□ノ□〈ノ〉蔓</td><td>寛<br>□〈ノ〉蔓</td><td>19<br>1</td><td>90.3<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>瘕</td><td>□寛采<br>□ノ〈穀〉</td><td>寛<br>□〈穀〉</td><td>19<br>1</td><td>90.3<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">寢, 瘧, 痞, 糟, 瘦, 痛, 〈寢〉</td></tr><tr><td>寢</td><td>□寛蔓<br>□ノ〈穀〉</td><td>寛<br>□〈穀〉</td><td>19<br>2</td><td>81.9<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>瘕</td><td>□寛臬<br>□ノ□〈ノ〉臬</td><td>寛<br>□〈ノ〉臬</td><td>19<br>3</td><td>74.6<br>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>寤</td><td>□寛吾<br>□ノ〈梧〉</td><td>寛<br>□〈梧〉</td><td>19<br>3</td><td>74.6<br>1.9</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 5. □□□E 个 R ↔ □E □□个 R (131)</caption><tbody><tr><td>病</td><td>□(癘)丙<br>□(癘)□片/□)丙</td><td>〈癘〉<br>□(片/□)丙</td><td>17<br>1</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈癘〉</td><td>□(癘)曼<br>□(癘)□片/□)曼</td><td>〈癘〉<br>□(片/□)曼</td><td>17<br>1</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈癘〉, 〈癘〉, 〈寐〉, 〈寤〉, 〈寐〉, 〈寤〉, 〈寤〉, 〈寐〉, 〈寐〉, 〈病〉, 〈瘳〉, 〈寐〉</td></tr><tr><td>寤</td><td>□(癘)言<br>□(癘)□片/□)言</td><td>〈癘〉<br>□(片/□)言</td><td>17<br>2</td><td>80.1<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈寤〉</td><td>□(癘)言<br>□(癘)□片/□)言</td><td>〈癘〉<br>□(片/□)言</td><td>17<br>2</td><td>80.1<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>着</td><td>□产目<br>□(音)□□目</td><td>□<br>□目</td><td>12<br>1</td><td>85.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>差</td><td>□产丑<br>□(音)□□丑</td><td>□<br>□丑</td><td>12<br>1</td><td>85.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈舊〉, 〈舊〉, 〈舊〉</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">履</td><td>□尸曳<br>□尸□个曳</td><td>尸<br>□个曳</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>□尸婁<br>□尸□个婁</td><td>尸<br>□个婁</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">屩</td><td>□尸喬<br>□尸僑</td><td>尸<br>僑</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>□尸〈曳/曳〉<br>□尸□个〈曳/曳〉</td><td>尸<br>□个〈曳/曳〉</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈履〉</td><td>□尸〈婁/婁〉<br>□尸□个〈婁/婁/婁〉</td><td>尸<br>□个〈婁/婁/婁〉</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>屵</td><td>□尸栞<br>□尸□个栞</td><td>尸<br>□个栞</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈屵〉</td><td>□尸娄<br>□尸□个娄</td><td>尸<br>□个娄</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>〈蹙〉</td><td>□〈厥〉虫<br>□〈广/ㄉ〉□〈歛〉虫</td><td>〈厥〉<br>□〈歛〉虫</td><td>67<br>2</td><td>94.3<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈應〉</td><td>□康心<br>□广□隶心</td><td>康<br>□隶心</td><td>55<br>1</td><td>96.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈廕〉</td><td>□庚〈凡〉<br>□广□夹〈凡〉</td><td>庚<br>□夹〈凡〉</td><td>51<br>1</td><td>96.2<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈廪〉</td><td>□庚十<br>□广□夹十</td><td>庚<br>□夹十</td><td>51<br>1</td><td>96.2<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈裒〉, 〈>, 〈>, 〈廩〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈原〉</td><td>□〈原〉水<br>□〈广/ㄉ〉□京水</td><td>〈原〉<br>□京水</td><td>48<br>1</td><td>96.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>□麻鳥<br>□广〈鷹〉</td><td>麻<br>〈鷹〉</td><td>45<br>1</td><td>95.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>磨</td><td>□麻口<br>□广〈替〉</td><td>麻<br>〈替〉</td><td>45<br>1</td><td>95.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">麋, 麋, 摩, 魔, 磨, 鷹, 麋, 麋, 摩</td></tr><tr><td>磨</td><td>□麻言<br>□广〈替〉</td><td>麻<br>〈替〉</td><td>45<br>2</td><td>91.7<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>磨</td><td>□麻呂<br>□广□林呂</td><td>麻<br>□林呂</td><td>45<br>3</td><td>87.9<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>□产何<br>□广□由何</td><td>产<br>□由何</td><td>43<br>1</td><td>95.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>廕</td><td>□产衣<br>□广□由衣</td><td>产<br>□由衣</td><td>43<br>1</td><td>95.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈廕〉, 〈廝〉, 〈廩〉, 〈廂〉, 〈廂〉, 〈廂〉, 〈鷹〉</td></tr><tr><td>廕</td><td>□产且<br>□广□由且</td><td>产<br>□由且</td><td>43<br>2</td><td>91.3<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈庶〉</td><td>□产𠔃<br>□广□由𠔃</td><td>产<br>□由𠔃</td><td>43<br>2</td><td>91.3<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈廕〉, 〈廪〉</td></tr><tr><td>庶</td><td>□产𠔃<br>□广□由𠔃</td><td>产<br>□由𠔃</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>鹿</td><td>□<u>声</u>比<br>□<u>广</u>□<u>出</u>比</td><td>□<u>声</u><br>□<u>出</u>比</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈庶〉</td><td>□<u>产</u>从<br>□<u>广</u>□<u>出</u>从</td><td>□<u>声</u><br>□<u>出</u>从</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈鹿〉</td><td>□<u>声</u>(比)<br>□<u>广</u>□<u>出</u>(比)</td><td>□<u>声</u><br>□<u>出</u>(比)</td><td>43<br>5</td><td>80.3<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈饜〉</td><td>□〈厭〉食<br>□<u>广</u>〈鑒〉</td><td>〈厭〉<br>〈鑒〉</td><td>35<br>1</td><td>94.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈麤〉</td><td>□〈厭〉面<br>□<u>广</u>〈鑒〉</td><td>〈厭〉<br>〈鑒〉</td><td>35<br>1</td><td>94.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">魔, 〈魔〉, 槃, 〈罠〉</td></tr><tr><td>歷</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉止<br>□〈<u>广</u>〉□〈<u>麻</u>〉止</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉<br>□<u>麻</u>止</td><td>34<br>1</td><td>94.4<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈曆〉</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉田<br>□〈<u>广</u>〉□〈<u>麻</u>〉替</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉<br>□〈替〉</td><td>34<br>1</td><td>94.4<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈曆〉, 〈鷹〉, 〈鷹〉, 〈曇〉, 〈屢〉, 〈樊〉, 〈歷〉, 〈虀〉, 〈鷹〉, 〈鷹〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈曆〉</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉甘<br>□〈<u>广</u>〉□〈<u>麻</u>〉替</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉<br>□〈替〉</td><td>34<br>2</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>曆</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉〈<u>石</u>〉<br>□〈<u>广</u>〉□〈<u>麻</u>〉□<u>麻</u>石)</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉<br>□<u>麻</u>石)</td><td>34<br>2</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈歷〉</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉〈止〉<br>□〈<u>广</u>〉□〈<u>麻</u>〉□<u>麻</u>止)</td><td>□〈<u>麻</u>〉<br>□<u>麻</u>止)</td><td>34<br>2</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉目<br>□<u>广</u>□〈<u>雁</u>〉目</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉<br>□〈<u>雁</u>〉目</td><td>31<br>1</td><td>93.8<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉口<br>□<u>广</u>□〈<u>雁</u>〉口</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉<br>□〈<u>雁</u>〉口</td><td>31<br>1</td><td>93.8<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">鷹, 鷹, 鷹, 鷹, 〈鷹〉</td></tr><tr><td>應</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉心<br>□<u>广</u>□〈<u>雁</u>〉心</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉<br>□〈<u>雁</u>〉心</td><td>31<br>2</td><td>88.2<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉鳥<br>□<u>广</u>□〈<u>雁</u>〉鳥</td><td>□〈<u>雁</u>〉<br>□〈<u>雁</u>〉鳥</td><td>31<br>2</td><td>88.2<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">鷹, 鷹</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>廢</td><td>府衣<br>□广□付衣</td><td>府<br>□付衣</td><td>29<br>1</td><td>93.4<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>腐</td><td>府肉<br>□广□付肉</td><td>府<br>□付肉</td><td>29<br>1</td><td>93.4<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈賡〉</td><td>府貝<br>□广□付貝</td><td>府<br>□付貝</td><td>29<br>2</td><td>87.5<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>廕</td><td>府天<br>□广□付天</td><td>府<br>□付天</td><td>29<br>3</td><td>82.1<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈廕〉</td><td>府天<br>□广□付天</td><td>府<br>□付天</td><td>29<br>3</td><td>82.1<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>曠</td><td>厭甲<br>□厂□獸甲</td><td>厭<br>□獸甲</td><td>27<br>1</td><td>93.0<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>عن</td><td>灰匕<br>□厂□火匕</td><td>灰<br>□火匕</td><td>24<br>1</td><td>92.2<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈عن〉</td><td>灰〈匕〉<br>□厂□火〈匕〉</td><td>灰<br>□火〈匕〉</td><td>24<br>1</td><td>92.2<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈愿〉</td><td>厚心<br>□厂□(學)心</td><td>厚<br>□(學)心</td><td>21<br>1</td><td>91.1<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>巵</td><td>〈巖〉(巴)<br>□巖□一(巴)</td><td>〈巖〉<br>□一(巴)</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈巵〉</td><td>〈巖〉(巴)<br>□巖□一(巴)</td><td>〈巖〉<br>□一(巴)</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈巵〉</td><td>〈巖〉(己/己/己/己)<br>□巖□一(己/己/己/己)</td><td>〈巖〉<br>□一(己/己/己/己)</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈斤〉</td><td>〈斤〉丁<br>□斤□(干)</td><td>〈斤〉<br>□(干)</td><td>20<br>2</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈旂〉</td><td>〈旂〉乙<br>□旂□乙</td><td>〈旂〉<br>□乙</td><td>20<br>2</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>巵</td><td>〈巖〉巴<br>□巖□一(巴)</td><td>〈巖〉<br>□一(巴)</td><td>20<br>2</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>后</td><td>〈后〉口<br>□后□(口)</td><td>〈后〉<br>□(口)</td><td>20<br>68</td><td>5.2<br>59.8</td></tr><tr><td>〈帅〉</td><td>〈帅〉巾<br>□帅□巾</td><td>〈帅〉<br>□巾</td><td>20<br>80</td><td>4.0<br>64.0</td></tr><tr><td>犀</td><td>尿牛<br>□尸□水牛</td><td>尿<br>□水牛</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈廬〉</td><td>庫〈oshi〉<br>□广□車〈oshi〉</td><td>庫<br>□車〈oshi〉</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>鷹</td><td>鯫鬲<br>□厂□秣鬲</td><td>鯫<br>□秣鬲</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>曆</td><td>□麻日<br>□广□秋日</td><td>麻<br>□秋日</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">歷, 厲, 廩, 麟, 廩, 厲, 厲, 麟, 厲</td></tr><tr><td>旹</td><td>□麻火<br>□广□秋火</td><td>麻<br>□秋火</td><td>16<br>2</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>厯</td><td>□麻心<br>□广□秋心</td><td>麻<br>□秋心</td><td>16<br>2</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>曇</td><td>□厥骨<br>□广□歆骨</td><td>厥<br>□歆骨</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>塵</td><td>□厥虫<br>□广□歆虫</td><td>厥<br>□歆虫</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈旹〉</td><td>□雁〈直〉<br>□广□〈隹〉〈直〉</td><td>雁<br>□〈隹〉〈直〉</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈旹〉</td><td>□雁〈贝〉<br>□广□〈隹〉〈贝〉</td><td>雁<br>□〈隹〉〈贝〉</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>旰</td><td>□雁貝<br>□广□〈隹〉貝</td><td>雁<br>□〈隹〉貝</td><td>10<br>2</td><td>69.4<br>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>〈旰〉</td><td>□〈厌〉木<br>□广□犬木</td><td>〈厌〉<br>□犬木</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈旰〉</td><td>□〈厌〉手<br>□广□犬手</td><td>〈厌〉<br>□犬手</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">〈旰〉, 〈旰〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈旰〉</td><td>□〈厌〉土<br>□广□犬土</td><td>〈厌〉<br>□犬土</td><td>10<br>2</td><td>69.4<br>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>庶</td><td>□府~~<br>□广共</td><td>府<br>共</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>度</td><td>□府又<br>□广共</td><td>府<br>共</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">應, 庶</td></tr><tr><td>庾</td><td>□府火<br>□广共</td><td>府<br>共</td><td>9<br>3</td><td>56.3<br>6.3</td></tr><tr><td>席</td><td>□府巾<br>□广共</td><td>府<br>共</td><td>9<br>4</td><td>47.9<br>9.5</td></tr><tr><td>屬</td><td>□犀〈蜀〉<br>□尸□牛〈蜀〉</td><td>犀<br>□牛〈蜀〉</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 7. □□□ LRB ↔ □□□ LBR (210)</caption><tr><td>犀</td><td>□犀牛<br>□尸□牛</td><td>犀<br>□牛</td><td>9<br>1</td><td>81.0<br>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">犀, 〈犀〉, 〈犀〉, 〈屈〉, 〈犀〉</td></tr><tr><td>愿</td><td>□原心<br>□广□京心</td><td>原<br>□京心</td><td>8<br>1</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈堰〉</td><td>□鴈真<br>□厂□〈僞〉真</td><td>鴈<br>□〈僞〉真</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈堰〉</td><td>□鴈火<br>□厂□〈僞〉火</td><td>鴈<br>□〈僞〉火</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈庶〉</td><td>□庶~~<br>□广□〈〈+〉/〈+〉/〈廿〉/〈廿〉/〈北〉}~~</td><td>庶<br>□〈〈+〉/〈+〉/〈廿〉/〈廿〉/〈北〉}~~</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈度〉</td><td>□庶又<br>□广□〈〈+〉/〈+〉/〈廿〉/〈廿〉/〈北〉}又</td><td>庶<br>□〈〈+〉/〈+〉/〈廿〉/〈廿〉/〈北〉}又</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈庶〉, 〈應〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈席〉</td><td>□庶巾<br>□广〈帋/帋/帋/帋〉</td><td>庶<br>□帋/帋/帋/帋</td><td>7<br>3</td><td>49.0<br>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈庶〉</td><td>□庶火<br>□广〈荧〉</td><td>庶<br>□荧〉</td><td>7<br>5</td><td>34.0<br>17.4</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>p<sub>n</sub></th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉赤<br>□□□吉赤〈穀〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□吉赤</td><td>40<br>1</td><td>95.2<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉羊<br>□□□吉羊〈穀〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□吉羊</td><td>40<br>1</td><td>95.2<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉〈豕〉<br>□□□吉〈豕〉〈穀〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□吉〈豕〉</td><td>40<br>2</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□〈穀〉木<br>□□□秦〈穀〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□秦</td><td>40<br>2</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">穀, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉出<br>□□吉出〈夂〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□吉出</td><td>40<br>3</td><td>86.5<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉子<br>□享〈夂〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>享</td><td>40<br>3</td><td>86.5<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">〈穀〉, 〈穀〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□〈穀〉卵<br>□□吉卵〈夂〉</td><td>〈穀〉<br>□吉卵</td><td>40<br>4</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺缶<br>□□吉缶〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉缶</td><td>32<br>1</td><td>94.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺口<br>□□吉口</td><td>殺<br>□吉口</td><td>32<br>1</td><td>94.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">穀, 穀, 穀, 穀</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺林<br>□□吉林〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉林</td><td>32<br>2</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺目<br>□□吉目〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉目</td><td>32<br>2</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">穀, 穀, 穀, 穀</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺子<br>□□享〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>享</td><td>32<br>3</td><td>83.6<br>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺火<br>□□吉火〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉火</td><td>32<br>3</td><td>83.6<br>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺出<br>□□吉出〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉出</td><td>32<br>3</td><td>83.6<br>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺卵<br>□□吉卵〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>□吉卵</td><td>32<br>4</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺禾<br>□□〈稾〉〈夂〉</td><td>殺<br>〈稾〉</td><td>32<br>4</td><td>79.0<br>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈穎〉</td><td>□〈須〉女<br>□□夂女〈覓/頁〉</td><td>〈須〉<br>□夂女</td><td>28<br>1</td><td>93.2<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈穎〉</td><td>□〈頃〉(末)<br>□□〈七〉/七〈末〉〈覓/頁〉</td><td>〈頃〉<br>□〈七〉/七〈末〉</td><td>20<br>1</td><td>90.7<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>〈穎〉</td><td>□〈頃〉禾<br>□□〈七〉/七〈禾〉〈覓/頁〉</td><td>〈頃〉<br>□〈七〉/七〈禾〉</td><td>20<br>2</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈穎〉</td><td>□〈頃〉示<br>□□〈宗〉〈覓/頁〉</td><td>〈頃〉<br>□宗〉</td><td>20<br>8</td><td>51.0<br>8.2</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 8. 回回 AEM ↔ □ A 回 EM if E is kamae (411)</caption><tbody><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□□□□士←(ㄉ)孚<br>□□□□士←(ㄉ)孚</td><td>□□士←(ㄉ)<br>□□士←(ㄉ)</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□□□□士←(ㄉ)土<br>□□□□士←(ㄉ)土</td><td>□□士←(ㄉ)<br>□□士←(ㄉ)</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉, 〈穀〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□□□□士←(ㄉ)□口米<br>□□□□士←(ㄉ)□口米(ㄉ)</td><td>□□士←(ㄉ)<br>□□士←(ㄉ)□口米</td><td>11<br>2</td><td>71.6<br>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□□□□士←(ㄉ)告<br>□□□□士←(ㄉ)告(ㄉ)</td><td>□□士←(ㄉ)<br>□□士←(ㄉ)告</td><td>11<br>2</td><td>71.6<br>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>〈穀〉</td><td>□□□□士←(ㄉ)牛<br>□□□□士←(ㄉ)牛(ㄉ)</td><td>□□士←(ㄉ)<br>□□士←(ㄉ)牛</td><td>11<br>2</td><td>71.6<br>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺告<br>□□□□声告(ㄉ)</td><td>殺<br>□□□□声告</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>穀</td><td>□殺牛<br>□□□□声告(ㄉ)</td><td>殺<br>□□□□声告(ㄉ)</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">殺, 穀, 穀, 穀, 穀</td></tr><tr><td>叡</td><td>□叡(ㄉ)谷<br>□□□(ㄉ)谷又</td><td>〈叡〉<br>□□(ㄉ)谷</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈叡〉</td><td>□叡(ㄉ)谷/谷<br>□□□(ㄉ)谷/谷又</td><td>〈叡〉<br>□□(ㄉ)谷/谷</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>叡</td><td>□叡(ㄉ)贝<br>□□□(ㄉ)贝又</td><td>〈叡〉<br>□□(ㄉ)贝</td><td>7<br>2</td><td>60.5<br>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>〈叡〉</td><td>□叡(ㄉ)贝<br>□□□(ㄉ)贝又</td><td>〈叡〉<br>□□(ㄉ)贝</td><td>7<br>2</td><td>60.5<br>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>〈叡〉</td><td>□叡(ㄉ)貝<br>□□□(ㄉ)貝又</td><td>〈叡〉<br>□□(ㄉ)貝</td><td>7<br>2</td><td>60.5<br>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>〈敍〉</td><td>□敍(ㄉ)立<br>□□□(ㄉ)台立</td><td>〈敍〉<br>□□(ㄉ)台立</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>〈鹵〉</td><td>□占(□)<br>□(□)□□□(□)</td><td>占<br>□□(□)</td><td>199<br>1</td><td>99.0<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>鹵</td><td>□占(ㄉ)<br>□(□)□</td><td>占<br>□□(□)</td><td>199<br>18</td><td>84.1<br>0.7</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 10. 四四四 LRBA -> 三三三 LARB (511)</caption><tbody><tr><td>棗</td><td>回<ruby>栄<rt>回</rt></ruby>石<br>□<ruby>梨<rt>梨</rt></ruby></td><td>棗<br>〈梨〉</td><td>21<br>9</td><td>49.0<br>9.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈棗〉</td><td>回<ruby>棗<rt>棗</rt></ruby>非<br>□<ruby>梨<rt>梨</rt></ruby></td><td>棗<br>〈棗〉</td><td>21<br>13</td><td>38.1<br>14.7</td></tr><tr><td>蓴</td><td>回<ruby>井<rt>井</rt></ruby>黎<br>□<ruby>黎<rt>黎</rt></ruby>井</td><td>井<br>□<ruby>黎<rt>黎</rt></ruby>井</td><td>17<br>1</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>莽</td><td>回<ruby>井<rt>井</rt></ruby>大<br>□<ruby>大<rt>大</rt></ruby>井</td><td>井<br>□<ruby>大<rt>大</rt></ruby>井</td><td>17<br>1</td><td>89.2<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">蕓, 蕓, 蓓, 蕁, 蕨, 蕨, 蕨, 蕨, 蕨, 蕨, 〈聳〉</td></tr><tr><td>聳</td><td>回〈聳〉桐<br>□<ruby>桐<rt>桐</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>桐<rt>桐</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>12<br>1</td><td>85.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>回〈聳〉〈仔/缶/击〉<br>□<ruby>仔<rt>仔</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>仔<rt>仔</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>12<br>1</td><td>85.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">聳, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉</td></tr><tr><td>聳</td><td>回〈聳〉辰<br>□<ruby>辰<rt>辰</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>辰<rt>辰</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>12<br>2</td><td>73.5<br>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>回〈聳〉辰<br>□<ruby>辰<rt>辰</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>辰<rt>辰</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>12<br>2</td><td>73.5<br>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>聳</td><td>回<ruby>缶<rt>缶</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>聳<br>□<ruby>缶<rt>缶</rt></ruby>田田</td><td>12<br>1</td><td>85.2<br>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>回〈器〉英<br>□<ruby>器<rt>器</rt></ruby>□英</td><td>〈器〉<br>□<ruby>英<rt>英</rt></ruby>□</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>〈器〉</td><td>回〈器〉□太太<br>□<ruby>太太<rt>太太</rt></ruby>□</td><td>〈器〉<br>□<ruby>太太<rt>太太</rt></ruby>□</td><td>11<br>1</td><td>84.0<br>0.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>pn</th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>回〈聳〉咸<br>□<ruby>咸<rt>咸</rt></ruby>弓〈聳〉弓</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>弓<rt>弓</rt></ruby>咸</td><td>43<br>1</td><td>95.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈聳〉</td><td>回〈聳〉去<br>□<ruby>去<rt>去</rt></ruby>弓〈聳〉弓</td><td>〈聳〉<br>□<ruby>弓<rt>弓</rt></ruby>去</td><td>43<br>1</td><td>95.5<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same as above</td><td colspan="4">〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉, 〈聳〉</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉束<br>□〈惱〉扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>〈惱〉</td><td>43<br>2</td><td>91.3<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉米<br>□□弓米弓扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>□□弓米弓</td><td>43<br>2</td><td>91.3<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉, 〈囈〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉〈芻〉<br>□〈惱〉扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>〈惱〉</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉(叁)<br>□□弓(叁)弓扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>□□弓(叁)弓</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉每<br>□□弓每弓扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>□□弓每弓</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>〈囈〉</td><td>□〈囈〉孝<br>□□弓孝弓扌〉</td><td>〈囈〉<br>□□弓孝弓</td><td>43<br>3</td><td>87.4<br>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈曾<br>□□弓曾弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓曾弓</td><td>19<br>1</td><td>90.3<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈辱<br>□□弓辱弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓辱弓</td><td>19<br>1</td><td>90.3<br>0.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>囈, 囈, 囈, 囈</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈弗<br>□□弓弗弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓弗弓</td><td>19<br>2</td><td>81.9<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈酉<br>□□弓酉弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓酉弓</td><td>19<br>2</td><td>81.9<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Same as above<br>囈, 囈, 囈, 囈, 囈</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈(叁)<br>□□弓(叁)弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓(叁)弓</td><td>19<br>3</td><td>74.6<br>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈每<br>□□弓每弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓每弓</td><td>19<br>3</td><td>74.6<br>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈孝<br>□□弓孝弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓孝弓</td><td>19<br>3</td><td>74.6<br>1.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈咸<br>□□弓咸弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓咸弓</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈忈<br>□□弓忈弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓忈弓</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>囈囈</td><td>□囈采<br>□□弓采弓扌〉</td><td>囈<br>□□弓采弓</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 11. □□□ A □□ LRC ↔ □ A □□ LCR (611)</caption><tr><td>罠</td><td>罠去<br>□□弓去弓鬲</td><td>罠<br>□弓去弓</td><td>10<br>1</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>罠</td><td>罠〈煢〉<br>□□弓〈煢〉弓鬲</td><td>罠<br>□弓〈煢〉弓</td><td>10<br>2</td><td>69.4<br>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>罠</td><td>罠付<br>□□弓付弓鬲</td><td>罠<br>□弓付弓</td><td>10<br>2</td><td>69.4<br>2.8</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>p<sub>n</sub></th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>〈斎〉</td><td>斎〈齐〉貝<br>□□文□□貝|</td><td>斎〈齐〉<br>□□□貝|</td><td>30<br>1</td><td>93.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>〈斎〉</td><td>斎〈齐〉韭<br>□□文□□韭|</td><td>斎〈齐〉<br>□□□韭|</td><td>30<br>1</td><td>93.7<br>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">〈斎〉, 〈斎〉, 〈斎〉</td></tr><tr><td>斎</td><td>斎〈齐〉示<br>□□文□□示|</td><td>斎〈齐〉<br>□□□示|</td><td>30<br>3</td><td>82.6<br>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>〈贏〉</td><td>〈贏〉〈系〉<br>□□〈旨〉□□〈月〉系〈凡〉</td><td>〈贏〉<br>□□〈月〉系〈凡〉</td><td>23<br>1</td><td>91.8<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>〈贏〉</td><td>〈贏〉〈贝〉<br>□□〈旨〉□□〈月〉贝〈凡〉</td><td>〈贏〉<br>□□〈月〉贝〈凡〉</td><td>23<br>1</td><td>91.8<br>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">贏, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈贏〉</td><td>〈贏〉馬<br>□□〈旨〉□□〈月〉馬〈凡〉</td><td>〈贏〉<br>□□〈月〉馬〈凡〉</td><td>23<br>2</td><td>84.6<br>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td>贏魚<br>□□〈旨〉□□〈月〉魚凡</td><td>贏<br>□□〈月〉魚凡</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td>贏叟<br>□□〈旨〉□□〈月〉叟凡</td><td>贏<br>□□〈月〉叟凡</td><td>16<br>1</td><td>88.6<br>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Same<br>as<br>above</td><td colspan="4">贏, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉, 〈贏〉</td></tr><tr><td>〈斎〉</td><td>斎〈月/月/月/月〉<br>□□旅□□〈月/月/月/月〉|</td><td>斎<br>□□〈月/月/月/月〉|</td><td>7<br>1</td><td>76.6<br>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>斎</td><td>斎魚<br>□□〈旅〉□□魚|</td><td>斎<br>□□魚|</td><td>7<br>2</td><td>60.5<br>5.0</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>TABLE 12. □□□ AM □□ LRC ↔ □ AM □□ LCR (612)</caption><tr><td>〈虧〉</td><td>□ 併魚<br>□ 號□魚 |</td><td>併<br>□□魚 |</td><td>7</td><td>60.5</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td>□ 虧虫<br>□ 耿□(月)虫凡</td><td>虧<br>□(月)虫凡</td><td>7</td><td>76.6</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td>□ 虧羊<br>□ 耿□(月)羊凡</td><td>虧<br>□(月)羊凡</td><td>7</td><td>76.6</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td>□ 虧〈果〉<br>□ 耿□(月)(果)凡</td><td>虧<br>□(月)(果)凡</td><td>7</td><td>60.5</td></tr><tr><td>贏</td><td></td><td></td><td>2</td><td>5.0</td></tr></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>char</th><th>structure</th><th>component</th><th>p<sub>n</sub></th><th>accuracy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">〈羸〉</td><td>□〈羸〉貝<br>□〈亡〉□□(月)貝〈羊〉</td><td>〈羸〉<br>□□(月)貝〈羊〉</td><td>4<br>1</td><td>64.0<br>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>□〈羸〉羊<br>□〈亡〉□□(月)羊〈羊〉</td><td>〈羸〉<br>□□(月)羊〈羊〉</td><td>4<br>1</td><td>64.0<br>4.0</td></tr><tr><td>〈羸〉</td><td>□〈羸〉女<br>□〈亡〉□□(月)女〈羊〉</td><td>〈羸〉<br>□□(月)女〈羊〉</td><td>4<br>1</td><td>64.0<br>4.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

In many cases, especially in the trivial ones, the accuracy of the functional structures is high. Often these results are also consistent with the etymological structure. For example, in the case of “脩” (table 2), the accuracy of □□倀倀 is lower than the accuracy of □□倀倀备. In fact, □□倀倀备 seems to correspond to the etymological structure. However, since these results were calculated with respect to a simple count of the number of CHISE character objects, productivity of a component was divided by the number of glyph-variants of the component. For example, component 〈羸〉 is written in various forms such as “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” “羸,” etc. As the result, the productivity of apparent components (□□月x凡, □□月x羊, etc.) increases and the accuracy of the functional structure decreases. Therefore, if information on variant-relations is available, it is better to normalize the glyphs (close to the original forms), its structure and components.

## 5. Conclusion

Structural description of Chinese character should be based on Chinese character analysis (Chinese character studies), like grammatical analysis of natural language. For this reason, it is desirable to describe Hanzi structure based on etymological explanations. Etymological knowledge
is required to perform the task, however this information is missing for
many atypical Chinese characters, in fact the majority of CJKV Unified
Ideographs of UCS.

On the other hand, if we consider the “(degree of) componentness”
of Chinese characters, a (candidate for) component that produces more
Chinese characters is more likely to be considered as an actual com-
ponent. Considering components with respect to productivity does not
require any etymological knowledge on characters and therefore can be
calculated whenever we have a dataset of Hanzi structure descriptions
at our disposal.

Based on this hypothesis, we conducted an experiment using the
structural data on Chinese characters from the CHISE character on-
tology. As a result, we found that components based on etymological
knowledge are more likely to have a higher productivity.

References

Asahara, Tatsuro [浅原達郎] (1996). 漢字の字符 [*Chinese Character Graphemes*]. URL: http://yuetgu.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp:8098/yg/rs/jihu.pdf.

*Information technology—Universal Coded Character Set (UCS)* (2014). ISO/IEC 10646:2014. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Morioka, Tomohiko [守岡知彦] (2015). “Multiple-policy Character Anno-
tation based on CHISE.” In: *Journal of the Japanese Association for Digital Humanities* 1.1, pp. 86–106.

——— (2018a). “Integration of a Chinese Character Ontology Title and Historical Glyph Examples.” In: *9th International Conference of Digital Archives and Digital Humanities (DADH 2018)*. Taiwanese Association for Digital Humanities / Dharma Drum Institute of Liberal Arts, pp. 287–300.

——— (2018b). “項書き換え系を用いた漢字字体の包摂規準の形式化の試み [*An Attempt to Formalize Unification Rules of Chinese Characters Based on Term Rewriting System*].” In: 情報処理学会論文誌 [*Journal of the Information Processing Society of Japan*] 59.2, pp. 332–340.

Slaměníková, Tereza (2019). “On the Nature of Unmotivated Components in Modern Chinese Characters.” In: *Proceedings of Graphemics in the 21st Century, Brest 2018*. Ed. by Yannis Haralambous. Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 209–226.
# The Development of the Description of Punctuation in Historical Grammar Books

Tomislav Stojanov

*Abstract.* The central thesis of this paper is that the evolution of punctuation reveals many interesting sociolinguistic aspects of a language. Studying punctuation can offer us new insights into the development of language codification, the relationship between speech and writing, the socio-cultural circumstances of a specific epoch, and it can even contribute to contemporary descriptions of orthographic prescription. On the history of the development of punctuation, several key titles have been written that take into consideration different text sources, periods and languages, e.g., Parkes (1992), Salmon (1999), and Mortara Garavelli (2008). In this paper I aim to contrastively explore descriptions of punctuation found exclusively in a selection of prototypical and accessible grammar books from the time of Antiquity to the Enlightenment through the perspective of historical 'comparative standardology' (Joseph, 1987), an approach that Deumert (2003, p. 1) claim has rarely been explored systematically. I have analysed five grammar books from Antiquity, fourty from Renaissance Humanism (twenty-one Latin and nineteen vernacular), and twelve grammar books from the Enlightenment. The three analysed factors—the grammar-book function, the divergence of punctuation from grammatical teaching to orthographic content, and the transformation of punctuation into written characters—were recognized as the most significant legacies of grammar books in the evolution of punctuation and in its transformation into the function, status, and application as we know it today. Supported by the constant evolution of literacy, the number of punctuation marks has been steadily increasing. The observation of historical punctuation in de jure and de facto normative orthographies or grammar books shows the strong link between the socio-cultural context and punctuation-related descriptions or prescriptions.

## 1. Introduction

Not all modern European languages have government-authorized orthographic manuals that standardize writing. Written standards have been

Tomislav Stojanov

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

0000-0002-6972-6518

1. Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics, Zagreb, Croatia

2. University of Nottingham, School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies, UK

E-mail: tstojan@gmail.com

Y. Haralambous (Ed.), *Grapholinguistics in the 21st Century 2020. Proceedings*

Grapholinguistics and Its Applications (ISSN: 2681-8566, e-ISSN: 2534-5192), Vol. 5.

Fluxus Editions, Brest, 2021, pp. 713–737. https://doi.org/10.36824/2020-graf-stoj

ISBN: 978-2-9570549-7-8, e-ISBN: 978-2-9570549-9-2
established lexicographically either through general lexicography (e.g., English, French, Italian, and Spanish) or separate spelling dictionaries (e.g., Danish, German, Slovenian, and Russian). However, this was not the case throughout the history of language. Grammar books have assumed a central role in the process of language codification. Therefore, old grammar books provide numerous interesting insights into culture, the history of education, the evolution of linguistic thought, etc. (Law, 1997). By observing the history of punctuation in old grammar books through various socio-cultural circumstances and other factors in different epochs, we are able to learn more about the evolution of language description and prescription. A still-present practice of dividing punctuation marks into two classes—at sentential and word level—can be explained by an ancient differentiation between *distinctiones* and *notae*.<fnref n="1" /> Furthermore, the principles on the basis of which contemporary punctuation norms have been established (cf. Salmon (1962, p. 348) and Salmon, 1988), have their origin in the rhetorical and grammatical function of punctuation.<fnref n="2" />

The status and meaning of orthography and punctuation have changed throughout history. Orthography used to be a constituent part of many historical grammar books, whereas descriptions of punctuation were more seldom. For example, the majority of the grammar books of Latin in Renaissance Humanism analysed here considered orthography a component of grammar, with its own unit named *littera*. In order to quantitatively depict the relations between orthography, punctuation, and other grammatical entities, I will here present the search results of several key words in the monumental *Lexicon Grammaticorum* that spans 1,728 pages. The word punctuation has 34 instances, orthography with its derivatives appears 485 times (spelling 270), as compared with 656 occurrences of morphology, 780 of semantics, 1,305 of phonetics, 1,236 of dictionary and 1,385 of syntax. This roughly exposes which topics have been dominantly linked with descriptions made by the world's most representative grammarians.

The most comprehensive exploration of the development of historical punctuation in Europe can be found in Parkes (1992) and Mortara Garavelli (2008). Wingo (1972) wrote an excellent treatise of Latin punctuation in the Classical Age. The evolution of English punctua-

<footnote n="1">1. One example is Babić, Finka, and Moguš (2004), a standard orthographic manual of Croatian. The sentential (Croatian *rečenični znakovi*) and the orthographic marks (Croatian *pravopisni znakovi*) are the same characters (e.g., period, comma, colon, etc.) with the difference that the first are separate sentences and the latter affect the pronunciation or meaning of a word.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. For instance, one of the disputes during the 1960 Novi Sad spelling reform of Croatian was a switch in the prescription of the use of punctuation from a 'grammatical principle' to a logical ('free' or rhetorical) principle. Cf. Jonke (1962) and, earlier, Guberina (1940).</footnote>
tion from 1476 to 1776 has been analysed by Salmon (1999).<fnref n="3" /> Both latter
sources included grammar books in their studies and points for further
reading. However, a contrastive exploration of the description of punc-
tuation specifically in grammar books, as the most influential represen-
tations of written norms in language history, is still lacking.

The most common way to categorize grammar books is in terms
of the well-known historical epochs of Western civilization. From the
punctuation point of view, this periodized approach yields an un-
wanted gap in the typology, since grammar books, such as those written
under the influence of Rationalism (the so-called universal or the philo-
sophical grammars), do not include descriptions of punctuation at all.
Therefore, I have adopted a more specific classification, proposed by
Vogl (2012: 22), which was created to depict the emergence of a stan-
dard language ideology:

1. the emergence of ‘uniform written languages’ in the Middle Ages;

2. the emergence of a ‘correctness ideology’ in Early Modern times
   (‘language and norm’);

3. the instrumentalization of ‘correct languages’ as vehicles of identity politics and the politics of democratization in the eighteenth and nineteenth century (‘language and nation’);

4. the devaluation of everything non-standard in the nineteenth and twentieth century ('the best variety').

For a discussion on punctuation in grammar books, the fourth period
is not relevant, since punctuation eventually became separated from
grammatical teachings and reached its orthographical status in the third
phase. This standard-language-ideology timeline corresponds to the
historical socio-cultural periods. The emergence of ‘uniform written
languages’ is linked to Antiquity and the Middle Ages; the emergence
of a ‘correctness ideology’ matches up with Renaissance Humanism; and
the relationship between language and nation was established in the age
of Enlightenment.

## 2. Methodology

The selection criteria for grammar books was defined according to the
grammar-book prototypicality, availability, edition, and the language
status today.

<footnote n="3">3. I would like to point out here more useful sources for the study of (historical) punctuation. Houston (2013) is an interesting and a well-written popular scientific book on the evolution of numerous punctuation marks from Antiquity to the modern era. One important source for modern grapholinguistic studies on punctuation and its typology is Gallmann (1985).</footnote>
Prototypicality refers to an attempt to include the relevant gram-
mar books for a specific period, language, or country. While searching
for them, I have used many sources of both historical and modern lin-
guistic literature, such as Walch (1716) and Law (1997) for Latin, Mars-
den (1796), Howland Rowe (1974), and Horst (2016) for vernacular lan-
guages, and Kovachich (1786), Marsden (1796), Swiggers (2001), and
Haßler and Neis (2009), for the Enlightenment period. I found some
sources during my own search.

Availability can be exemplified by the case of Dévai Bíró Mátyás, who (Kamusella, 2009, p. 122) defines as the first grammarian of Hungarian in 1538. I could not find this grammar book, and instead used Sylvester (1539), a book one year younger.

To gain a methodologically consistent picture of the state of
grammar-book descriptions of punctuation in vernacular languages,
I used the criterion of the first printed grammar books in 19 available
languages. The abovementioned Howland Rowe (1974) was particu-
larly useful because of his comparative research into the first vernacular
grammars of the sixteenth and seventeenth century for 63 languages.
I have adopted his methodology of grammar-book determination and
the list of grammars with two differences. Instead of the Hungarian
grammar of Molnár (1610), I studied the earlier Sylvester (1539), and
instead of the Portuguese grammar of Barros (1539), I considered the
seven-year-older grammar of Oliveira (1532).

The last criterion was that I reviewed only languages that are offi-
cially used on a national level in Europe today, excluding minority and
regional languages. The consulted grammar books are listed in the pri-
mary bibliography. There are five grammar books from Antiquity, 40
from the Renaissance Humanist era (21 Latin and 19 vernacular), and
12 from the Enlightenment period, which describe a total of eight lan-
guages.

The text sources of the grammars from the period of Antiquity were
the Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum webpage (sadly unavailable for
some time now,<fnref n="4" />), the Greek Wikisource page<fnref n="5" /> with Dionysus Thrax's
Grammar, the Documenta Catholica Omnia website,<fnref n="6" /> Davidson (1874),
Copeland and Sluiter's selection of translated texts published in 2012,
Barney et al. (2006), and the Google Books service.

<footnote n="4">4. http://kaali.linguist.jussieu.fr/CGL.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5. https://goo.gl/oyQRVB.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6. http://www documentacatholicaomnia eu/.</footnote>
### 3. Antiquity

On punctuation, Aristotle commented in the fourth century BCE that, 'It is a general rule that a written composition should be easy to read and therefore easy to deliver'. The reason why he included a discussion on punctuation in his book on rhetoric was obvious—according to Aristotle, one had to be skilled in rhetoric to punctuate a text.<fnref n="7" /> Since proper punctuation was considered a skill of knowledgeable people, it logically appeared in the oldest preserved grammar of Greek, at the turn of the second to the first century BCE, Dionysus Thrax's Art of Grammar (Τέχνη γραμματική). It has 25 parts, two of which relate to the punctuation content: part (IV) on signs for clauses, and part (V) on the difference between the period and comma in terms of the criterion of time, i.e., the pause. The longest clause was the period (Greek περίοδος), which was marked by a high dot; a medium-long clause was the colon (Greek κώλον), which was marked by an intermediate dot; and a short clause was marked by an underdot, or the comma (Greek κόμμα). The three basic punctuation marks represent syntactical and rhetorical units that indicate the manner of speaking, since texts in Antiquity were written in a continuous series of capital letters without blanks (Lat. *scriptura continua*).

This was adopted by the Roman grammarian Aelius Donatus, who wrote two Latin grammars (350 CE). *Ars maior* is an extended work and includes the chapter "De distinctionibus," which discusses the three positions of the separator character: high (Lat. *distinctio*), low (Lat. *subdis- tinctio*), and middle (Lat. *media distinctio*). Priscianus Caesariensis wrote *Institutiones grammaticae* around the year 520 CE and did not describe punctuation marks or other written characters.

Even though it is not a grammar book as such, but a medieval encyclopaedia, Isidore of Seville's *Etymologiae* from the sixth to seventh century was a highly influential book (or rather collection of books), among which the first one was dedicated to grammar. It is divided into 44 chapters, three of which relate, more or less, to what we would today associate with punctuation: *De posituris* (XX), *De notis sententiarum* (XXI), and *De notis vulgaribus* (XXII). *De posituris* is about punctuation, although Isidore, according to Aristophanes and other grammar-book precursors, continues to consider the *comma*, *colon*, and *periodos* to be parts of sentences, which led Barney et al. (ibid., p. 74) to translate these terms as *clause*, *phrase*, and *sentence*. *De notis sententiarum* deals with 26 sentence marks of 'critical reading' (asterisk, paragraph, quotation marks, etc.). *De notis vulgaribus* describes symbols that mark syllables and words.

<footnote n="7">7. 'To punctuate Heracleitus is no easy task, because we often cannot tell whether a particular word belongs to what precedes or what follows it.' Both Aristotle's citations are translated by W. Rhys Roberts and found in Barnes (1991, p. 114).</footnote>
In *Ars grammatica* (ca. 798), Alcuin divides grammar into 26 types, among which there are punctuation marks (*positurae*), critical marks (*nōtae*), orthography, etc. Alcuin does not list them, but defines them—punctuation marks are, in Copeland and Sluiter’s (2012) translation, ‘points to distinguish meanings’. Critical marks symbolize ‘certain marks, either to abbreviate marks, or to express meanings; or they are used for a variety of reasons, such as the obelus <÷> in Holy Scripture, or the asterisk <*>’.

## 4. Renaissance Humanism

### 4.1. Punctuation in Latin Grammar Books

In order to analyse the status of punctuation in Latin grammar books, I have looked at three aspects: (1) the definition of a grammar, (2) the content of the orthographic chapter, and (3) the description of punctuation. A total of 21 Latin grammar books, from the oldest one, Nebrija's in 1481, to Golius's in 1636, have been reviewed in more detail in Table 1.

The authors of the 12 Latin grammar books consider orthography a constituent part of grammar, equal with prosody, etymology (i.e., morphology and word formation) and syntax, with their respective units *littera* (letter or sound), *syllaba* (syllable), *dictio* (word), and *oratio* (clause). These are Nebrija, Cochlaeus, Curio, Melanchthon, Ramus, Valerius, Crusius, Alvares, Caucius, Frischlinus, Sanctius, and Golius. *Littera* is the ‘sound which becomes separate by writing’ (*vox, quae scribi potest individual*, Nebrija), while Scioppius goes even further by identifying *littera* as the basic unit of orthoepy, which was a synonym of orthography. The teaching on *littera*, the basic unit of orthography, is fundamentally about sounds. The grammatical content of *littera* in grammar books in this period is a division of letters and sounds, the difference between the letters K and Q, Z, and Y, discussions over the letter X, double letters, the arrangement of letters, diphthongs, and pronunciation of consonants with the sound *h*, etc. However, in spite of the *littera* definition and description, many grammarians define orthography as the art of writing correctly (*ars [recte] scribendi*, e.g., Nebrija, Curio, Crusius, Frischlinus, Golius), with prosody, etymology, and syntax being described as an art of speaking correctly (*ars [recte] loquendi*).<fnref n="8" />

The orthographic content in a wider sense (including the annexed chapter by Camerarius in Melanchthon’s grammar book) encompasses the following 12 units in Latin grammar books:

<footnote n="8">8. An overview of the orthography and grammar definitions from the reviewed period can be found in Haßler and Neis (2009, pp. 1716–1730).</footnote>
1. teachings about *littera*;

2. the division of *distinctiones* into a comma, a colon, and a period;

3. marks (*notae*): question mark, exclamation mark, round brackets, di- aeresis, hyphen between words, hypodiastole, accent marks;

4. apostrophe;

5. capital and minuscule letters;

6. the abbreviation of writing;

7. the division of words into syllables;

8. spelling variants (e.g., *ad/at, obstitit/opstitit*);

9. deviations in writing or general spelling mistakes;

10. rhetorical figures (*de figuris orthographicis*) and deviation from usual writing: *adjectio, detractio, transmutatio, and immutatio*;

11. three theoretical perspectives: tradition (*autoritate*), etymology (*nota- tione*), and correctness (*proportione*);

12. an orthographic glossary with a list of Greek names that were trans- ferred into Latin differently.

Based on the description, on the characters that are included, and on its location in grammar books, punctuation teaching can be divided into four categories. These can even be named as stages in the evolution of punctuation. Each grammar book belongs to a single category, except for Valerius, Frischlinus, and Camerarius, which share features from the third and fourth categories.

(a) grammar books without a description of punctuation;

(b) grammar books that inherited a description of punctuation from Antiquity with three basic characters—comma, colon, and period;

(c) grammar books with five basic punctuation characters—the three abovementioned marks plus the question mark and parenthesis;

(d) grammar books with innovative approaches to the description of punctuation;

Ten grammarians belong to the first category (Aventinus, Brassicanus, Lancilotus, Linacre, Scaliger, Ramus, Alvares, Caucius, Sanctius, and Scioppius).

The interest of Latin grammarians and prominent orthographers during the Renaissance Humanist period was intrinsically bound to Greek and its written history, and they thus inherited teaching from the Antique period. Some Latin grammarians consistently followed the 'traditionalist' grammatical teachings on punctuation (Clenardus, Melanchthon, and Sanctius) and they all belong to the second category. All three authors described punctuation as a syntactic phenomenon—the three basic characters (comma, colon, and period) were within or immediately followed the syntactic chapter.

Alsted and Golius belong to the third category, with five punctuation marks (comma, colon, period, plus question mark and parentheses), which were explained both syntactically (*partes periodi*) and respi-
ratorily (*notae respirationes*). Both of them grouped the period, colon, and comma into the respiratory characters, while the question mark and parentheses were sentence characters of sound change (*notae mutationis soni*), as defined by Alsted. There are more grammarians that we associate with this group—Manutius, Frischlinus, Valerius, Camerarius, and Curio. Unlike Alsted and Golius, their description of punctuation went beyond the solely rhetorical or syntactic. Instead of a description of speech finiteness or perfection, which was a typical grammatical aspect of punctuation in Antiquity, the punctuation content was no longer in the syntactic part, but (1) among grammatical foundations—at the end of the first book on grammar essentials (Valerius); (2) at the end of the book (Manutius), together with accents and meter; (3) as part of the orthography chapter (Curio, Frischlinus), or within the orthography annex of the grammar book (Camerarius).

The last, fourth category of punctuation among the Latin grammarians happened when the punctuation set was enlarged with other characters. These are characters that denote pronunciation—accents, diaereses, apostrophes, marks for long and short syllables, and hyphens (Valerius, Golius). Furthermore, these characters signal an even stronger influence of the written language, which would become more obvious in vernacular grammar books: capital letters (Frischlinus) and paragraph marks, obelisks, and asterisk signs (Camerarius).

The period, colon, comma, question mark, and parentheses were fundamental features in punctuation descriptions found in sixteenth century Latin grammar books. The exclamation mark appeared much later—first in Alsted (1610), and then in Golius (1636), even though an 'effect of admiration' is mentioned in Manutius (1507)—an author who considerably influenced today's punctuation standards in his famous work as an early printer and typographer.

Just three grammarians described punctuation within orthography. The first was Curio (1546), and next came Camerarius, the author of the orthography chapter that featured as an annex in Melanchthon's grammar book. (Melanchthon did not consider punctuation part of orthography, however.) This annex was printed eight years before Aldus Manutius's *Orthographiae ratio* (1561) and can be regarded as one of the oldest printed orthographic manuals of Latin. The third grammarian was Frischlinus (1586).

## 4.2. Punctuation of the First Vernacular Grammars

Latin continued to be the language of science in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, and so it was the starting point for describing vernaculars. Most vernacular grammar books used Latin as their metalanguage (12 out of 19). The teaching of vernacular grammars was completely in-
herited from Latin grammar books. One reason why vernacular grammars rely on Latin grammars so strongly probably lies in Law's explanation: the more the description of a language was similar to Latin, the more successful the grammars were (Law, 2003, p. 234). This is why the first Nordic grammar books were even literally translated pursuant to Donatus's *Ars minor* (Hovdhaugen et al., 2000, p. 10).

However, the status of punctuation in vernacular grammar books reveals an interesting pattern related to grammar-book function. While Antique grammars were oriented towards the native speaker, the vernacular grammars placed the foreign language speaker at their centre.<fnref n="9" /> One aspect of language learning and tutoring found in vernacular grammars is their including a key to understanding the function of punctuation in them. I have analysed 19 vernacular grammars in their first editions in relation to one of the most important socio-cultural factors of that time—religion. Table 2 shows the language and metalanguage of grammar books, the religious background and information on the inclusion of the description of punctuation.

For a grammar book such as this, whose author was among the ranks of the Catholic Church and was working towards the ultimate goal of supporting (re)evangelization and spreading the faith, punctuation was of secondary importance. Grammar books were aimed at missionaries and priests who needed to learn the vernacular, and who were starting from Latin. Since the Jesuits were in charge of this process, they decided to typify the Latin grammar (Alvares 1572) and to complement it with data from local languages. If Alvares's grammar had had any punctuation-related content, this would certainly have been transferred to the vernacular grammars that were modelled on it. It did not because the written language was not vital knowledge for the Catholic Counter-Reformation or Revival, which prioritized preaching, i.e., the spoken language. Four Catholic grammar books were analysed, among which three did not have any description of punctuation—Portuguese (Oliveira 1532), Croatian (Kašić 1604) and Irish (Maolmhuaidh 1677). One exception is Albertus (1573), albeit with the important detail that Albertus converted from the Protestant to the Catholic faith five years prior to the book being printed, which tentatively suggests it was written under the influence of Protestantism and different socio-cultural circumstances.

Likewise, the practical reason of learning a new language underpinned the secular grammars. The spoken language was once again more important to pilgrims, traders, diplomats, and other travellers.

<footnote n="9">9. Law (1997, p. xi). This is valid for the grammars that employ the Latin metalan-
guage. For the others, which were written in vernaculars, Vogl (2012, p. 20) explains
that 'these grammars were not meant for foreign language learners, but for speakers
of (a variety of) the languages to whom the authors of the grammars wanted to teach
a "correct" version of their mother tongues.'</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 1. Overview of Latin grammar books and their punctuation content</caption><thead><tr><th>Author</th><th>Is there a chapter that includes orthography and/or punctuation?</th><th>Does it include punctuation? If so, what is the content?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nebrija (1481)</td><td>7 pages on orthography (De erotymatis orthographia) in book 3 of 5. In the later edition (1515) he added a chapter De punctis clausularum on one page after the last, fifth book.</td><td>Comma, colon, period (nota punctus), parenthesis, and nota interrogationis.</td></tr><tr><td>Manutius (1507)</td><td>6 pages (De posituris) as the last book chapter, which also describes syllables, meter, and accents with many punctuation references</td><td>Period, colon, comma, question mark. Brackets were given as an example, but not directly named.</td></tr><tr><td>Cochlaeus (1514)</td><td>orthography without punctuation on 9 pages (Folio LXXVI).</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Aventinus (1515)</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Brassicanus (1518)</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Lancilotus (1518)</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Linacre (1532)</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Scaliger (1540)</td><td>no</td><td>no</td></tr><tr><td>Curio (1546)</td><td>2 pages (De orthographia) in book 4 of 5.</td><td>Punctuation (distinctiones— period, comma, colon, question mark, brackets) is described in the chapter of orthography.</td></tr><tr><td>Clenardus (1551)</td><td>1 page (Partes periodi) in the second part of the book + 19 annexed pages (De orthographia) at the end of the book.</td><td>The description of sentence parts (partes periodi) as period, colon, and comma is after the description of syntax and before the part on accents and syllables. The orthography chapter was written by Johannes Vasaeus and it does not include punctuation.</td></tr><tr><td>Melanchthon (1553)</td><td>4 pages (De periodis) + 2 (De distinctionibus) + 16 annexed pages (De orthographia) at the end of the book, out of which 2.5 pages are dedicated to punctuation.</td><td>Description of sentence parts (periodus, comma, colon) is immediately after the syntax, and is followed by a chapter on distinctiones (subdistinctio, media distinctio and distinctio vocalis/finalis). The orthography chapter in this edition was written by Joachim Camerarius. It includes sentence marks (de notis distinctionum), which are: period, comma, colon, question mark, and brackets. In one paragraph, Camerarius also mentions compound marks (multiplices notae): paragraphus, asteriscus, and obeliscus.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Ramus (1559)<br>Valerius (1560)</td><td>no<br>1 page (Quaedam de notis) at the end of the first book on the basics of grammar, before etymology.</td><td>no<br>Comma, colon, periodus, interrogatio, parenthesis, apostrophus, mark for long and short syllable, hypodiastole, and diaesis, and four accent marks.</td></tr><tr><td>Crusius (1563)</td><td>5 pages (De orthographia) at the beginning of the second part of the book + 8 pages (De distinctionibus, et compositione orationis) after the chapter on verbs and before the description of the calendar.</td><td>Subdistinctio, media distinctio, finalis distinctio, interpositio (round brackets), and nota interrogationis.</td></tr><tr><td>Alvares (1572)<br>Caucius (1581)<br>Frischlinus (1586)</td><td>no<br>no<br>8 pages (De orthographia et prosodia) at the beginning of the book, which includes the section De notis on punctuation (half of the page).</td><td>no<br>no<br>Orthography is determined in a twofold (duplex) fashion: basic (simplex) - sounds and letters, and formed (figurata) - marks (de notes) and figures (de figuris orthographicis). Punctuation is explained as separation marks (nota distinctionum), which are six: comma (or virgula), colon, period (punctus finalis), question mark (nota interrogationis), brackets (nota parentheseos) and capital letters (litera majuscula).</td></tr><tr><td>Sanctius (1587)<br>Alsted (1610)</td><td>no<br>2 pages on punctuation (De orationis distinctione) in the chapter on syntax, behind the part on exclamations and before syntactic figures.</td><td>no<sup>a</sup><br>Punctuation is divided into primary and secondary. Primary are respiratory marks (nota respirationis): virgula, periodus, and duo puncti. Secondary are marks of sound change (nota mutationis son): parenthesis, signum interrogationis, and signum exclamationis.</td></tr><tr><td>Scioppius (1628)<br>Golius (1636)</td><td>no<br>4 pages (De orthographia) with which the book begins + 4 pages (De ratione interpungendi) as an appendix to the book on syntax (Appendix ad syntaxin prior).</td><td>no<br>Comma, colon, and periodus are punctuation marks based on the creation of breathing (respiratio). Semicolon is included as part of the colon. Other punctuation marks are interrogationis, parentheseos, exclamationis, diareseos, and connexionis (a hyphen between words, e.g., ante-malorum).</td></tr></table>

<footnote>a. *Tropos, periodos, cola, commata* are mentioned once in the third book on syntax as figures of the verb and the sentence.</footnote>
<table><caption>TABLE 2. Review of vernacular grammars</caption><thead><tr><th>Work</th><th>Language</th><th>Metalanguage</th><th>Religious background</th><th>Descr. of punct.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nebrija (1492)</td><td>Spanish</td><td>Spanish</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Giovanni Francesco Fortunio (1516)<sup>10</sup></td><td>Italian</td><td>Italian</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Barclay (1521)</td><td>French</td><td>English</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Oliveira (1532)</td><td>Portuguese</td><td>Portuguese</td><td>Catholic</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Optát et al. (1533)</td><td>Czech</td><td>Czech</td><td>Protestant</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Sylvester (1539)</td><td>Hungarian</td><td>Latin</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Statorius (1568)</td><td>Polish</td><td>Latin</td><td>Protestant</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Albertus (1573)</td><td>German</td><td>Latin</td><td>Prot. > Cath.</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Spieghel (1584)</td><td>Dutch</td><td>Dutch</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Bohorič (1584)</td><td>Slovenian</td><td>Latin</td><td>Protestant</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Bullokar (1586)</td><td>English</td><td>English</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Kašić (1604)</td><td>Croatian</td><td>Latin</td><td>Catholic</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Portius (1638)</td><td>Greek</td><td>Latin</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Petraeus (1649)</td><td>Finnish</td><td>Latin</td><td>Protestant</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Jónsson (1651)</td><td>Icelandic</td><td>Latin</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Pontoppidan (1668)</td><td>Danish</td><td>Latin</td><td>Protestant</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Maolmhuaidh (1677)</td><td>Irish</td><td>Latin</td><td>Catholic</td><td>No</td></tr><tr><td>Tiällmann (1696)</td><td>Swedish</td><td>Swedish</td><td>Protestant</td><td>Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Ludolf (1696)</td><td>Russian</td><td>Latin</td><td>Secular</td><td>No</td></tr></tbody></table>

None of the nine secular grammar books explored here contained descriptions of punctuation. Unlike Catholicism, Protestantism relied heavily on printing and on spreading the written word. In the period from 1521 to 1545, 30.2% out of 5,651 printed books related to the reformation, and 17.6% to the Catholic doctrine. In the first half of the reviewed period, as much as 46% of all printed books related to reformation (Crofts, 1985, p. 373). These vernacular grammars attached more importance to punctuation because reading also became an important purpose for using the language. Most of the first vernacular grammars (four out of six), whose authors belonged to the Protestant priesthood, contain a description of punctuation to a smaller or greater extent.

Except for the five basic Latin punctuation marks, three more were included in this period: the hyphen, semicolon, and exclamation mark. The Czech grammar book introduced a hyphen at the end of a line, which illustrates a typographical influence on punctuation and the next step towards its separation from speech. The Danish grammar was the first to include the semicolon and exclamation mark (*signum administrationis*). The number of pages with a description of punctuation rose:

<footnote n="10">10. The first edition dates from 1516, however, I have used the edition from 1545.</footnote>
while punctuation was listed on one to two pages in Latin grammars, the vernacular grammar book contained punctuation descriptions spanning from two and half to six pages (Czech—five pages, Slovenian—five pages, Danish—six pages, Swedish—two and half pages). All the grammar books included punctuation in the chapters on orthography. There was no notable correlation between a vernacular grammar’s metalanguage and the description of punctuation.

## 5. The Enlightenment

One of the most obvious manifestations of the Enlightenment in European countries was the introduction of mass and compulsory primary education (Prussia 1763 and the Habsburg Monarchy 1774) and the establishment of national language academies (the Netherlands—1766, Russia—1783, Spain—1713, and Sweden—1783) or ministries of education (Poland—1773) with the goal of issuing normative grammars and establishing prescriptions concerning language use.

Among the first grammar books commissioned by language academies or other authorities with the goal of being normative and authoritative, the Russian (Lomonosov 1757), Polish (Kopczyński 1778), and Swedish (Sahlstedt 1769) grammar books included a description of punctuation. The half page on Russian punctuation encompasses the five basic marks, together with the semicolon, hyphen, and exclamation mark. Punctuation was called 'line characters' (Russian строчные знаки) and described in the second part of the book *О чтеніи и правописаніи росciискомъ* ('On the reading and spelling of Russian'). Punctuation marks were named 'orthographic marks' in Polish (*znamiona pisarskie*) or *notae ortographicae*, with the Latin explanation in brackets, and described across two-and-a-half pages in the third part on grammar *O Znamionach* ('On marks'). They were the same as in Russian, while also including three footnote marks (1, a, *). The description of punctuation in Swedish is included in the last, sixteenth part of the grammar book (Swedish: *Om Skiljetecknen och andra uti skrifwande brukliga*, 'On punctuation and other writing habits'). It spans two-and-a-half pages and does not include the question mark among the five basic marks, but does include the semicolon, apostrophe, and diaeresis. Sahlstedt did not use the term 'orthography' in his grammar book.

The first normative grammar of Spanish, *Gramática de la lengua castellana* (1771), and Dutch, *Nederduitsche Spraakkunst* (1805), both commissioned by their respective national academies, do not include punctuation, only because the normative orthographic manuals had already been published (*Orthographía Española* for Spanish in 1741 and Siegenbeek for Dutch in 1804).
The Prussian government commissioned Johann Christoph Adelung to create a school grammar, which appeared in 1781 with a highly structured chapter on orthography, which included punctuation-related content. Adelung's description of orthography is in terms of a completely independent unit that he placed at the end of his grammar. It appeared in a separate publication entitled *Grundsätze der Deutschen Orthographie* one year later (1782). His four-and-halfpage-long subchapter on punctuation is divided into three categories: the first includes the question mark and the exclamation mark, the second the period, colon, semicolon, and the comma, and the third the quotation marks, the hyphen (*Theilungszeichen*) as `<=>` or `->`, round and square brackets, the ellipsis (*das Zeichen einer abgebrochenen Rede*), the en-dash (*Gedankenstrich*) or `->`, and the apostrophe.

The school reformer under the rule of Maria Theresia, Johann Ignaz Felbiger, issued a German normative grammar in 1774, which did not include content pertaining to orthography or punctuation because it came out in the same year as a separate, also normative orthographic manual (*Felbiger's Anleitung zur deutschen Rechtschreibung: zum Gebrauche der deutschen Schulen in den kaiserlich-königlichen Staaten* in 1774). Felbiger's grammar served as a template grammar and orthography in all official languages of the Habsburg Monarchy (Hungarian, Croatian, Romanian, Slovakian, and others). It was first published in bilingual editions, and later as an adapted translation.

Unlike the above grammar books, all of which were normative language manuals in their societies, the following selection of grammar books in other countries were used as de facto language textbooks. They all include a description of punctuation marks. The most influential English grammar books in the period of the Enlightenment were Brightland and Gildon (1711) and Lowth (1762), with the latter said to be the 'embodiment of prescriptive grammar' (Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2000, p. 881). Brightland and Gildon's grammar is divided into four parts—letters, syllables, words, and sentences. Punctuation, or *Stops and Pauses in Sentences* is described on its own, in the eleventh chapter on three pages, within the fourth part of the book that consists of three chapters (after the chapter on sentences that precedes, and before the chapter on prosody that succeeds it). The punctuation described is the comma, colon, semicolon, full stop or point, question mark, wonder or administration mark, parenthesis, hyphen (at the end of a line), apostrophe, a caret mark that signifies an unintentionally omitted word in writing or printing, a stroke or a long line instead of word(s) deliberately left out, index point <∫>, obelisk mark as a footnote sign <‡>, section mark <§>, asterisk <*>, quotation marks <" >, and paragraph mark <¶>.

Lowth's chapter on punctuation, which is 17 pages long, is structurally equal to the other parts of the grammar book and is positioned at the end of the book. It includes the comma, colon, semicolon, period,
question mark, exclamation mark, and the parenthesis, without mentioning orthography. According to Stammerjohann (2009, p. 932), Ash (1763) was used in schools as an adaptation of Lowth's grammar. This grammar has a 3-page separate chapter on punctuation ('Of the Points and Stops, and Other Characters Made Use of in Writing') at the end of the introductory chapter entitled 'An Introduction to the Grammatical Institutes'. The term 'orthography' was not used. The punctuation marks included are the comma, semicolon, colon, period, question mark, exclamation mark, quotation marks (<'>' or <">), brackets, caret, hyphen, apostrophe, paragraph mark (¶), diaeresis, and marks for notes at the bottom of the page (<>), <†>, <‡>, or <||>). Capital and minuscule letters are also mentioned here.

In America, Webster (1783–1785) wrote a grammar in three volumes: the first was dedicated to orthography (*Spelling Book*, 1783), the second to grammar (*Grammar*, 1784), while the third part was a reader (*Reader*, 1785). Punctuation-related content was included in two places: a one-page description, taken over from Brightland and Gildon's first book, with one slight change—the omission of the long line. The other description is in the appendix of the second book and spans six pages, with the subtitle 'Abridged from Dr. Lowth'. It includes the comma, semicolon, colon, period, question mark, exclamation mark, and the parenthesis.

Italy was not politically united in the eighteenth century, so no wide-ranging educational reforms for learning Italian could be completed. Corticelli (1745) was the first Italian grammar with a clear educational function. Punctuation is described in several subchapters in the last part of the book (In Italian: *Della maniera di pronunziare, e di scriver toscano*, 'On How to Pronounce and Write Tuscan' [i.e., Italian]). This third part was entitled *Della ortografia toscana* ('On Tuscan Orthography') in the page heading. Writing apostrophes was included in the fourth part, and writing periods and commas was in the eleventh chapter, which spanned a total of five pages. Besides the apostrophe, period, and the comma, only the question mark, exclamation mark, and the semicolon were described.

Based on the 12 reviewed de jure and de facto normative grammars in eight language environments (German and English in two political systems), nine of them describe punctuation marks (three English grammar books in England and one in America, German in Prussia, Polish, Russian, Swedish, and Italian), while three do not (Dutch, German in Austria, and Spanish). The reason why punctuation is not found in normative grammars in the Netherlands, the Habsburg Monarchy, and in Spain is that the orthographic content had already been separated from the grammatical teaching and had grown independently into a separate publication. The normative orthographic manuals were published alongside the normative grammars. Out of nine grammar books that included punctuation, five of them included it in the orthographic chap-
ter (Italian, English in America, German in Prussia, Russian) or, indeed, named punctuation marks 'orthographic marks' (Polish). The remaining four grammar books described punctuation in their own chapters, two of which made the punctuation chapter equal to other book parts or chapters (Sahlstedt and Lowth), whereas two grammar books categorized punctuation within the Introduction part (Ash) or together with the chapter on sentences and prosody. None of these four grammar books linked punctuation with orthography.

The Enlightenment grammar books introduced three major novelties in punctuation. First, the punctuation-related content has been created with pedagogical criteria in mind, so that the rules became more structured, shorter, and clearer. Second, punctuation has eventually become separate from speech. The written perspective taken to punctuation is visible in the inclusion of footnote marks, hyphens at the end of lines, square brackets, dashes, various quotation marks, etc. Third, punctuation has become an essential part of language prescriptions due to the orthographic content finally being separated from grammatical teachings.

## 6. Conclusions

Grammar books, central manuals in the history of language description, were the first framework in which content related to punctuation was described. The description of punctuation has a long history in grammar books from Antiquity to the Enlightenment. As grammar books evolved in different epochs, the teachings included on punctuation also changed—this signifies that punctuation relates to the socio-cultural context of grammar books. In this comparative analysis of the description of punctuation in historical grammar books, I have shown that the development of punctuation can be divided into three historical periods, which generally correspond to the classification of the emergence of a standard language ideology (Vogl 2012). I have isolated three major factors in the evolution of punctuation: the grammar book function, the divergence of punctuation from grammatical teaching into orthographic content, and the transformation of punctuation into written characters.

### 6.1. The Grammar-Book Function

The first factor is the change in the relationship between punctuation and grammar-book functions. The evolution of punctuation can be evaluated as the history of the change in function of the grammar book. Punctuation arose from a pragmatic purpose of consuming written texts. The aim of punctuation in the Classical Age was to show the
sentence structure in order to ease the clarity of the written text and to facilitate reading. For this purpose, three basic characters were enough.

The main function of grammar books in Renaissance Humanism was to help educate pupils in Latin, a language void of native speakers for centuries. This is why grammatical teaching was inherited from the period of Antiquity, when grammarians were native in Latin. Moreover, Renaissance Humanism was affected greatly by the ancient texts that came to Europe via trade routes with the East. All humanists were consumers of manuscripts and there is no humanism without books (Davies, 2004, p. 47). Some even say that Renaissance Humanism 'may be regarded as a primarily language-oriented (or "lingual") movement' (Vergurg, 1998, p. 189). The first printed grammar books of Latin, Nebrija, and Manutius started to include other characters among the punctuation marks from Antiquity, namely, the question mark and parentheses. The turning point was in the middle of the sixteenth century with Melanchthon (1553) and Valerius (1560), after which no one considered punctuation marks to be only the period, the comma, and the colon.

Regarding the content of punctuation, the discovery of the printing press affected punctuation considerably and represented the next stage in its evolution. Printed texts were more dominant, and punctuation evolved into standardized typographical marks. The number of standard punctuation marks raised from three to at least five. Two new punctuation marks were introduced—brackets and the question mark.

Based on its own description, punctuation in Latin grammar books was categorized into four groups (cf. 4.1). Among those authors who include descriptions of punctuation, we can conclude that punctuation evolved when it had begun to be considered as speech-related marks, outside of the scope of syntax.

On the other hand, the growing importance of the vernacular languages in administration and literary activity led to the emergence of vernacular grammar books (Percival, 2007). A need to spread religion and to learn vernacular languages were the factors that explain the (mis)appearance of punctuation's description in the first vernacular grammar books in Renaissance Humanism. Only grammar books written under the influence of Protestantism included descriptions of punctuation, which reveals the written character of language and the purpose of the grammar books.

The Enlightenment brought with it the last phase in punctuation's evolution. The function of grammar books changed substantially: they became prescriptive manuals commissioned by language institutions. Descriptions of punctuation were included in all the researched grammar books with the above-explained exception of two grammar books in which punctuation-related content was already printed separately in an associated orthographic textbook. The most representative feature of the Enlightenment was the introduction of the system of compulsory
public education. New grammar books had to satisfy the need for mass
literacy in writing and reading. This led to the inclusion of punctua-
tion because the unavoidable written characters and the introduction of
new punctuation marks emphasized the even stronger influence of the
written language.

## 6.2. Punctuation's Shift From Grammatical Teaching to Orthographic Content

In Antiquity punctuation was included in grammar books because of its rhetorical-syntactic role and the need to delimit speech. *Positurae, distinctiones or théseis* (period, colon, and comma, or *subdistinctio, media distinctio, and distinctio finalis*) were syntactic units that represented different parts of the sentence in order to indicate a level of finiteness of expression. They were also rhetorical marks because they symbolized places to breathe in while reading the *scriptura continua* texts. This teaching was inherited by the Latin grammarians Clenardus, Melanchthon, Sanctius, Alsted, and Golius. Other Latin grammarians, such as Manutius and Valerius, described punctuation as speech characters outside the syntactic chapters, but nevertheless punctuation was part of grammatical teaching. The change in the conception of punctuation happened in the middle of the sixteenth century with three grammarians—Curio, Camerarius, and Frischlinus—who began to regard punctuation as related to orthography.

The link between punctuation and orthography is clearly visible
among vernacular grammarians. All of the four grammarians who were
influenced by Protestantism, included their description of punctuation
within the chapter on orthography, unlike the Catholic and secular
grammarians (with just one debatable exception). These grammarians
enlarged the standard set of punctuation marks to include the hyphen
at the end of a line, the semicolon, and the exclamation mark.

The final stage in the evolution of punctuation was the ultimate sepa-
ration from grammatical teaching that happened during the Enlighten-
ment. In two-thirds of the languages analysed here, punctuation was
considered as part of orthography, described either within grammar
books (Italian, English in America, German in Prussia, Russian, and
Polish) or even completely separately in prescriptive orthographic text-
books (Dutch, German in the Habsburg Monarchy, and Spanish). Punc-
tuation was mostly described as separate from other grammatical fea-
tures in the remaining four grammar books too, but without any men-
tion of orthography. This divergence from grammatical teachings in
the Enlightenment was followed by the introduction of many new punc-
tuation marks, which led to the next, final element in the evolution of
punctuation.
The first mention of punctuation as orthographic marks was in the first Polish grammar book, Kopczyński (1778) (notae ortographicae or znamiona pisarskie), followed by Adelung (1781), who described punctuation (interpunction) as orthographic marks (orthographische Zeichen).

## 6.3. The Transformation of Punctuation Into Written Characters

The modern classification categorizes punctuation separately from other written characters (cf. Gallmann, 1985, and the Unicode standard), such as letters, symbols, numbers, etc. The distinction between the spoken and the written language is one of the most important in the evolution of language theory. From the three basic punctuation marks in Antiquity, today we count 798 characters that fall under the 'General Category of Punctuation' in the Unicode standard.<fnref n="11" /> It is not incorrect to say that this great progress in the number of punctuation characters was caused by the demands of contemporary literacy and frequent language use in the written form.<fnref n="12" />

In the periods considered, from Antiquity to Renaissance Humanism the spoken language was at the centre of grammatical descriptions, as can be seen in the definitions of grammar and the status of orthography and punctuation in it. The more a language was used in the written form, the more punctuation marks appeared in grammar books. This process was followed by the separation of punctuation from grammatical teaching, as explained in the previous section.

As with the two abovementioned described factors, there are three observable periods in the evolution of punctuation. A shift from handwriting to printed grammar books (or Antiquity to Renaissance Humanism) affected typographical standardization and the number of punctuation marks. Following the early printers, grammarians such as Camerarius and Frischlinus began to include new characters. They inserted capital letters and three text marks (paragraph mark, obelisk, and asterisk mark), and Optát et al. added a hyphen at the end of a line, while Golius, brought a hyphen inside a line to denote the structure of a word. All these new characters represent the increasing influence of the written language and printed books.

The second change that happened in the Enlightenment era was fostered by mass education and literacy. Being able to read and write became a requirement that led to the spread of the written language throughout many societal circles and with many applications. New

<footnote n="11">11. The Unicode Standard v13, https://www.unicode.org/charts/. Accessed on 8 September 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12. Parkes (1992, p. 2) stated that punctuation developed by stages that coincided with changing patterns of literacy.</footnote>
characters that appeared in prescriptive grammar books represented the influence of the written language—footnote signs, various dashes and quotation marks, square brackets, etc.

By observing the descriptions of punctuation in a selection of prototypical and accessible grammar books in different periods from Antiquity to the Enlightenment, and taking into account the function of the grammar book, the shift in punctuation from grammatical teaching to orthographic content, and the transformation of punctuation into written characters, a typology of the development of punctuation across three periods can be established:

1. The handwriting punctuation of Antiquity with three basic characters (period, comma, colon) that served a rhetorical-syntactic function and which were described within syntactic chapters.

2. The standardized punctuation of Renaissance Humanism with five basic characters (period, comma, colon, question mark, brackets) that served the roles of learning Latin and spreading the influence of vernacular languages in printed books. Punctuation reflected both the spoken and the written language, and it was described predominantly outside the syntactic chapters.

3. The prescribed punctuation of the Enlightenment with more than eight punctuation marks that served the role of learning a national language as part of mandatory education and with the aim of increasing literacy. The punctuation reflects the written language and is included as part of orthographic content.

This paper aims to contribute to the description and typology of punctuation (based on Vogl's classification of a standard language ideology) and to the recognition of comparative (historical) standardology, as defined by Joseph. I have shown that punctuation went through three major evolutionary periods that evidenced the emergence of uniform written languages, the emergence of normative written languages, and the establishment of prescriptive written languages.

The three analysed factors or in other terms—punctuation function (6.1), punctuation status (6.2) and punctuation application (6.3)—can be recognized as the most significant legacies of grammar books in the history of punctuation in relation to punctuation's transformation into the forms and meaning with which we are familiar today. The function is depicted by the change from Latin to vernacular languages, the status by the inclusion of punctuation in orthographic content, and the application by the use of characters that represented the printed language. A pioneering grammar book is finally worth mentioning here—the first Czech grammar (Optát et al. 1533), which apart from being the first vernacular grammar that included the description of punctuation (punctuation function), it also included it within orthography (punctuation status), and added the hyphen at the end of a line as a character of printed language (punctuation application).
## Acknowledgements

The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author.

This paper is part of the author's postdoctoral research project: "Understanding Spelling Conflicts. A Case Study of New Standard Languages in the Former Yugoslavia in the European Context," which is being conducted from 2020 to 2022 at the School of Cultures, Languages and Area Studies at the University of Nottingham, UK. For more details, see: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/892979.

I wish to thank Nicola McLelland for her valuable comments on my draft manuscript.

The language editing was completed by Andrew Hodges (https://andrewjohnhodges.com/).

I report that I have no potential conflict of interest.

## Primary Sources

### Antiquity

Alcuin. *Ars grammatica* (~ 790 AD).

Dionysius Thrax [*Διονύσιος Θράξ*. Τέχνη γραμματική [*Art of Grammar*] (2nd c. BC).

Aelius Donatus. *Ars minor*—*de partibus orationis* (~ 360–380 AD).

Aelius Donatus. *Ars maior* (~ 360–380 AD).

Isidore of Seville. *Etymologiae* (~ 600–625 AD).

Priscianus Caesariensis. *Institutiones grammaticae* (~ 500–530 AD).

Quintilian. *Institutio Oratoria* (~ 95 AD).

### Renaissance Humanism

Albertus, Laurentius (Augsburg 1573). *Teutsch Grammatick oder Sprachkunst*.

Alsted, Johann Heinrich (Herborn 1610). *Compendium grammaticae latinae*.

Alvares, Emmanuel (Lisbon 1572). *De institutione grammatica libri tres*.

Aventinus, Johannes (Augsburg 1515). *Grammatica nova fundamentalis juvenibus utilissima*.

Barclay, Alexander (London 1521). *Here begynneth the introductory to wryte, and to pronounce French*.

Barros, João de (Lisbon 1539). *Grammatica da lingua portuguesa*.

Bohorič, Adam. (Wittenberg 1584). *Arcticæ horulæ succissivæ de Latinocarniolana literatura*.

Brassicanus, Joanis (Leipzig 1518). *Institutiones grammaticae elimatissimae*.

Bullokar, William (London 1586). *Bref grammar for English*.
Caucius, Antonius (Leiden 1581). *Grammatica latina*.

Clenardus, Nicolaus (Braga 1551). *Institutiones grammaticae Latinae*.

Cochlaeus, Johannes (Nuremberg 1514). *Grammatica rudimenta ad latinae linguae*.

Crusius, Martinus (Basel 1563). *Grammatica graeca, cum latina congruens*.

Curio, Coelius Secundus (Basel 1546). *De literis doctrinaque puerili, libri quinque*.

Fortunio, Giovanni Francesco (Venice 1516). *Regole grammaticali della volgar lingua*.

Frischlinus, Nicodemus (Frankfurt a.M. 1586). *Grammatica latina*.

Golius, Theophil (Strasbourg 1636). *Grammatica latina*.

Jónsson, Runólfur (Copenhagen 1651). *Recentissima antiquissimae linguae septentrionalis incunabula; id est grammaticae Islandicae rudimenta*.

Kašić, Bartol (Rome 1604). *Institutionum linguae Illyricae libri duo*.

Lancilotus, Curius (Strasbourg 1518). *De arte grammatica libri octo*.

Linacre, Thomas (Venice 1532). *De emendata structura latini sermonis libri VI*.

Ludolf, Heinrich Wilhelm (Oxford 1696). *Grammatica russica*.

Maolmhuaidh, Froinsias Ó [O'Molloy, Francis] (Rome 1677). *Grammatica Latino-hibernica nunc compendiata*.

Melanchthon, Pilip (Nuremberg 1553). *Grammatica latina*.

Molnár, Albert Szenczi (Hanau 1610). *Novae grammaticae Ungaricae*.

Nebrija, Elio Antonio de (Salamanca 1481). *Introductiones latinae cum commento*.

Nebrija, Elio Antonio de (Salamanca 1492). *La gramática que nuevamente hizo el maestro Antonio de Lebrixa sobre la lengua castellana*.

Nebrija, Elio Antonio de (Salamanca 1515). *Grammatica cu[m] quarta editione*.

Manutius, Aldus (Venice 1507). *Institutionum grammaticarum libri quator*.

Oliveira, Fernão de (Lisbon 1532). *Grammatica da lingoagem portuguesa*.

Optát, Václav Beneš, Gzel, Petar, Philomathes, Václav (Náměšť nad Oslavou 1533). *Grammatyka česká v dvojí stránce*.

Petraeus, Eskil (Turku 1649). *Linguae Finnicae brevis institutio*.

Pontoppidan, Erik Eriksen (Copenhagen 1668). *Grammatica danica*.

Portius, Simon (Paris 1638). *Γραμματικὴ τῆς Ρωμαϊκῆς Γλῶσσας. Grammatica linguae Græcae vulgaris*.

Ramus, Petrus (Paris 1559). *Scholae grammaticae*.

Sanctius, Franciscus Brocensis (Salamanca 1587). *Minerva sive de causis linguae latinae*.

Scaliger, Julius (Lyon 1540). *De causis linguae latinae libri tredecim*.

Scioppius, Gaspar (Franeker 1628). *Grammatica philosophica*.

Spieghel, Hendrick Laurenszoon (Asmsterdam 1584). *Twe-spraack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst*.

Statorius, Pierre (Köln 1568). *Polonicae grammatices institutio*.

Sylvester, János (Sárvár 1539). *Grammatica bungarolatina*.
Tiällmann, Nils (Stockholm 1696). *Grammatica Suecana àller eñ Svensk Språk-ock Skrif-konst*.

Valerius, Cornelius (Köln 1560). *Grammaticarum institutionum libri IIII.*

## The Enlightenment

Adelung, Johann Christoph (Berlin 1781). *Deutsche Sprachlebre. Zum Gebrauche der Schulen in den Königl. Preuss. Landen*.

Ash, John (Worcester 1763). *Grammatical Institutes*.

Brightland, John, Gildon, Charles (London 1711). *A Grammar of the English Tongue*.

Corticelli, Salvatore (Bologna 1745). *Regole ed osservazioni della lingua toscana*.

Felbiger, Ignjat (Vienna/Freyburg 1774). *Anleitung zur deutschen Sprachlebre. Zum Gebrauche der deutschen Schulen in den kaiserlich-königlichen Staaten*.

Kopczyński, Onufry (Warsaw 1778). *Grammatyka języka polskiego i lacińskiego dla szkół narodowych na klasę pierwszą*, Warsaw, 1780 (... na klasę drugą); 1781 (... na klase trzecią).*

Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilyevich [Ломоносов, Михайл В.] (Sankt-Petersburg 1757). *Pocziская грамматика* [*Russian grammar*].

Lowth, Robert (London 1762). *Short Introduction to English Grammar*.

Sahlstedt, Abraham (Upsala 1769). *Swensk Grammatika*.

Webster, Noah (Hartford 1783). *A Grammatical Institute of the English Language. Spelling Book*. 1784. *Grammar* (1785). *Reader*.

Weiland, Pieter (Amsterdam 1805). *Nederduitsche Spraakkunst*.

## References

Babić, Stjepan, Božidar Finka, and Milan Moguš (2004). *Hrvatski pravopis* [*Croatian Orthography*]. 8th ed. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.

Barnes, Jonathan, ed. (1991). *The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation*. Vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Barney, Stephan A. et al. (2006). *The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Copeland, Rita and Ineke Sluiter (2012). *Medieval Grammar and Rhetoric: Language Arts and Literary Theory, AD 300–1475*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Crofts, Richard A. (1985). "Printing, Reform, and the Catholic Reformation in Germany (1521–1545)." In: *Sixteenth Century Journal* 16.3, pp. 369–381.

Davidson, Thomas (1874). *The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax. Translated from the Greek*. St. Louis, MO.
Davies, Martin (2004). "Humanism in script and print in the fifteenth century." In: *The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism*. Ed. by Jill Kraye. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47–62.

Deumert Ana; Vandenbussche, Wim (2003). "Standard languages: Taxonomies and histories." In: *Germanic Standardizations. Past to Present*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14.

Gallmann, Peter (1985). *Graphische Elemente der geschriebenen Sprache*. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Guberina, Petar (1940). "Interpunkcija “novoga” (Belićeva) pravopisa u svijetlu logike i stilistike [Punctuation of the ‘new’ (Belić) orthographic manual in the light of logic and stylistics].” In: *Nastavni Vjesnik* 48.1939–1940, pp. 329–351.

Haßler, Gerda and Cordula Neis (2009). *Lexicon sprachtheoretischer Grundbegriffe des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts*. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Horst, Joop van der (n.d.). *Propast standardnoga jezika. Mijena u jezičnoj kulturni Zapadne Europe [The Destruction of the Standard Language. A shift in the language culture of the Western Europe]*. Translated into Croatian by Radovan Lučić. Original title in Dutch: *Het einde van de standaardtaal. Een wisseling van Europese taalcultuur*. Zagreb: srednja europa.

Houston, Keith (2013). *Shady Characters. The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols & Other Typographical Marks*. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Hovdhaugen, Even et al., eds. (2000). *The History of Linguistics in the Nordic Countries*. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.

Howland Rowe, John (1974). "Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Grammars." In: *Studies in the History of Linguistics. Traditions and Paradigms*. Ed. by Dell Hymes. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 361–379.

Jonke, Ljudevit (1962). "Načela i primjena logičke interpunkcije [Principles and application of logical punctuation]." In: *Jezik* 9.3, pp. 71–78.

Joseph, John E. (1987). *Eloquence and Power. The rise of language standards and standard languages*. London: Frances Pinter.

Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). *The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe*. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kovachich, Martin Georg (1786). *Merkur von Ungarn: oder Litterarzeitung für d. Königreich Ungarn u. dessen Kronländer*. Pest: Gesellschaft patriotischer Liebhaber der Litteratur.

Law, Vivien (1997). *Grammar and Grammarians in the Early Middle Ages*. London: Longman.

——— (2003). *The History of Linguistics in Europe. From Plato to 1600*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Marsden, William (1796). *A Catalogue of Dictionaries, vocabularies, grammars, and Alphabets. In Two Parts*. London.

Mortara Garavelli, Bice, ed. (2008). *Storia della punteggiatura in Europa*. Bari: Editori Laterza.
Parkes, Malcolm Beckwith (1992). *Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West*. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.

Percival, Keith W. (2007). "Grammar, Humanism, and Renaissance Italy." In: *Mediterranean Studies* 16.2007, pp. 94–119.

Salmon, Vivian (1962). "Early Seventeenth-Century Punctuation as a Guide to Sentence Structure." In: *The Review of English Studies* 13.52, pp. 347–360.

——— (1988). "English Punctuation Theory 1500–1800." In: *Anglia—Zeitschrift für englische Philologie* 106.3–4, pp. 285–314.

——— (1999). "Orthography and Punctuation." In: *The Cambridge History of the English Language*. Ed. by Roger Lass. Vol. Volume III. 1476–1776. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–55.

Stammerjohann, Harro, ed. (2009). *Lexicon grammaticorum. A Bio-Bibliographical Companion to the History of Linguistics*. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Swiggers, Pierre (2001). "Grammar." In: *Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment*. Ed. by Michel Delon. Vol. I A-L. London: Routledge, pp. 617–622.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2000). "Normative studies in England." In: *History of Language Science. An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present*. Ed. by Sylvain Auroux et al. Vol. Volume 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 876–887.

Verburg, Pieter Adrianus (1998). *Language and its Functions*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vogl, Ulrike (2012). "Multilingualism in a standard language culture." In: *Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History*. Ed. by Matthias Hüning et al. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–42.

Walch, Johann Georg (1716). *Historia critica latinae linguae*. Lipsiae: sumtu I. F. Gleditschii B. filii.

Wingo, Otha E. (1972). *Latin Punctuation in the Classical Age*. The Hague: Mouton.
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>
# Form-Meaning Regularities in Old English Lexicon

Nataliia Drozhashchikh · Elena Efimova · Evgenia Meshcheryakova

*Abstract.* This article deals with the form-meaning hypothesis in Old English within the theory of arbitrariness/non-arbitrariness. It focuses on the relations between the initial grapheme (phoneme) in a word and its lexical semantics and aims to reveal any non-arbitrary form-meaning associations at the lexical level. The data include <w>-, 
-, <h>-, and <p>-. words from a Thesaurus of Old English. The methodology employs statistical methods (Chi-square test, the co-efficient of contingency, the contributions to the Chi-square) within Python re-alization. Our primary hypothesis is that alliteration—regular repetition of on-sets in Old English lexemes, could stand for the regularities in the semantics of these words. We extrapolate the initial research and underlying hypothesis to lexical data in general. The findings demonstrate non-arbitrary form-meaning regularities at the level of the entire Old English lexicon—the tendency of words sharing initial graphemes to be attracted to certain semantic categories.

## 1. Introduction

The present study focuses on form-meaning relationships in the Old English lexicon. Form-meaning mappings have long been in the focus of attention in semiotics and linguistics. They were first mentioned in the theory of the correctness of names in Plato's *Cratylus*. According to *phusei* approach, it was proposed that "there is a kind of inherent correctness in names" and according to *sunthēkē and homologia* approach, it

Nataliia Drozhashchikh

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

0000-0002-5910-2402

Tyumen State University, Volodarskogo 6, 625003 Tyumen, Russia

E-mail: n.v.drozhashhikh@utmn.ru

Elena Efimova

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

0000-0002-6584-965X

Tyumen State University, Volodarskogo 6, 625003 Tyumen, Russia

E-mail: elena.efimova@gmail.com

Evgenia Meshcheryakova
Independent researcher

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

0000-0001-8748-640X

E-mail: evg.meshch@gmail.com

Y. Haralambous (Ed.), *Grapholinguistics in the 21st Century 2020. Proceedings*

Grapholinguistics and Its Applications (ISSN: 2681-8566, e-ISSN: 2534-5192), Vol. 5.

Fluxus Editions, Brest, 2021, pp. 739–754. https://doi.org/10.36824/2020-graf-droz

ISBN: 978-2-9570549-7-8, e-ISBN: 978-2-9570549-9-2
was believed that there is no “correctness of names other than conven-
tion and agreement”.<fnref n="1" /> The phusei approach has served as the basis for
developing the theory of non-arbitrariness (iconicity) that includes into
its scope all motivated form-meaning cases (onomatopoeia, sound sym-
bolism, phonaesthemes, ideophones, etc.). In recent decades an increas-
ing number of publications on non-arbitrary coding in language have
seemed to undermine the thesis of linguistic conventionality and have
made it clear that there cannot be a place for “convention and agree-
ment” dogma in linguistic theory. While studying frequency and com-
plexity of letters and script (Altmann, 2004); universal lexical semantics
across languages (Blasi et al., 2016; Youn et al., 2016); phonological sys-
tematicity (Monaghan, Shillcock, Christiansen, and Kirby, 2014); corre-
lation of orthographic/phonological form (Jee, Tamariz, and Shillcock,
2018); form-meaning mapping in alliterative verse (Cornell, 1981); se-
mantic functions of phonemic clusters (Lvova, 2005); the semantics of
graphemes (Slaměníková, 2019), modern scholars provide evidence that
language combines both arbitrary and non-arbitrary relations.

Form-meaning relations in earlier stages of language have not been sufficiently studied. A few papers focus directly on this kind of relationship in Old English, in particular, on sound symbolism, submorphemic iconicity, and form-meaning association in alliteration (Cornell, 1981; Jespersen, 1922; Minkova, 2003; Philps, 2008; C. A. Smith, 2016). While studying the relations between the phonemes and the semantic classes like “sound,” “tone,” “size,” “movement,” “human body,” etc., the authors ascribe the meaning to the phonemic clusters themselves. E.g., Philps (2008) claims that word-initial phonaesthemes “are endowed with a potential for meaning”. Cornell (1981) does not attribute meaning to the phonemes but reveals the tendency of alliterating sounds to be connected with certain connotative meanings. As far as the entire Old English lexicon is concerned, the research pertaining to the association of the initial phoneme in the words and their referential meaning is insufficient. Meanwhile, referentiality is directly related to the process of non-arbitrary coding in older languages as early nominations are more iconic (see Atkinson, Mills, and Smith, 2019).

Historical linguistics and the theory of evolution put an important emphasis on the role of non-arbitrary coding in language formation and development. Older languages represent the phase of development, where a clear motivation of the nomination and word formation processes are possible, and the original etymological basis of referential meanings has not yet been suppressed. The formation processes that take place in different parts of the language system at the earlier stages of its development provide more information about possible form-meaning relationships than in modern languages. For example, it

<footnote n="1">1. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus(text:1999.01.0172</footnote>
is known that as the vocabulary grows more abstract, the original mean-
ing of the word, which, as a rule, is concrete, becomes obscure. The
growing number of derivatives makes it difficult to extract monomor-
phic lexemes that retain their original non-derivational meanings. The
penetration and assimilation of lexical borrowings in the receiving lan-
guage complicate the distinction between the original and borrowed vo-
cabulary, which does not help to understand the processes taking place
in the lexicon. All these processes violate the original linguistic system-
aticity in order to become the source of new systematic relations in the
further stages of linguistic development.

In this paper, we attempt to test the non-arbitrary form-meaning hy-
pothesis in the Old English lexicon. Statistical methods and seman-
tically (conceptually) organized dataset of A Thesaurus of Old Eng-
lish allowed us to test the form-meaning association at the lexical level
and conclude with certain assumptions a statistically significant form-
meaning correlation.

The structure of the article is the following. In Introduction, we pro-
pose a hypothesis and set the objectives of the study; in Sections 2-4 we
present the outline of the previous work and describe basic terminol-
ogy; in Section 5 we outline the data and methods of the research and
summarize the obtained results in Section 6. In Section 7 we outline the
possible prospects of the current research and reveal its limitations.

2. Old English Lexicon

Old English is “the language spoken by the Germanic inhabitants of
Britain” (5th–11th c.) in which prosaic and poetic texts were writ-
ten (Fulk, 2014) and one of the earliest periods of language develop-
ment (7th–11th c.). Old English prosaic texts include the translations
of the Bible, Gospels, Psalter, Wulfstan’s Homilies, Ælfric’s works (re-
ligious texts); law codes, wills, and charters (legal texts); The Anglo-
Saxon Chronicle (documentary prose); King Alfred’s original composi-
tions and translations from Latin (literary, philosophical, and didactic
prose), historical works, and medical tracts. Poetry is represented by
heroic and elegiac poems, religious and lyrical texts, magical and didac-
tic poems, and riddles. Alliterative poetic texts, in particular, Beowulf,
Genesis, Exodus, Cynewulf’s poems Elene, Juliana, Andreas; Judith, The
Dream of the Rood, The Wanderer, The Seafarer, Metrical Charms, and
others have gained an important place in the history of Old English
(Godden, 1992). There is a fairly large number of the surviving Old
English texts. Nevertheless, religious texts are thematically dominant,
which may impose constraints on the further analysis of the lexis.

The Old English lexicon, presented in A Thesaurus of Old English,
was collected by lexicographers from the English texts of 7th–11th c. and
contains lexical layers of different chronological and etymological depth (Pollington, 1993). The lexicon includes the vocabulary of Latin/Greek origin, neutral groups of words of different genres, and a small amount of colloquial vocabulary (this layer of vocabulary cannot be fully selected due to the lack of speech fixation). Along with the vocabulary of different registers, the Old English lexicon includes purely poetic vocabulary found mainly in poetry and nowhere else (Barney, 1985).

The Old English lexicon and its various linguistic and stylistic aspects have been studied by many scholars (Kastovsky, 1992; J. J. Smith, 2009). Nevertheless, we are not aware of the works that study non-arbitrary form-meaning relationships in the Old English lexicon as a whole.

### 3. Form-Meaning Relationships: Basic Terminology

Within the framework of non-arbitrary relationships in language, there are a number of terms that constitute the conceptual basis for this research. They include the terms linguistic sign, signifier, signified, lexeme, initial sound, grapheme, referential meaning, arbitrariness, iconicity, similarity, isomorphism, analogy, systematicity.

Linguistic signs represented by words or lexemes—the major units of vocabulary, are identified by the two components—the form (sounds/graphemes) and the content (meanings). In Saussure's theory these components are signifier and signified. Signifier is represented as a sound or graphical form of a word. The most relevant component of the form is an initial sound (phoneme). It is the smallest structural unit of language that carries important information since it is cognitively and positionally marked. An initial phoneme is connected with an initial grapheme—an orthographic representation of a sound. Signified is a word meaning—a quantum of sense revealing information about entities, processes, ideas, events in the world. Since there are a number of word meanings (lexical, grammatical, social, connotative, pragmatic, etc.) we discuss only conceptual meanings. They differ from other forms of meanings in that they refer to a cognitive content of a word. We can consider a conceptual meaning as the referential meaning of a word—an entry that is usually given in a dictionary.

‘Signifier/signified’ relations can be arbitrary or non-arbitrary (iconic). Arbitrariness does not hold any direct natural connection between the sign and its meaning and can be applied to the majority of linguistic signs. The principle of “whatever name you give to a thing is its right name” (Plato) became the fundamental principle of language whereby linguistic signs are considered arbitrary or conventional (F. de Saussure). Non-arbitrariness or iconicity involves the relations of similarity, isomorphism or analogy between some aspects of form and meaning.
The three terms are nearly identical in meaning, with similarity being a "one-to-one mapping of a Euclidean space onto itself"<fnref n="2" />, isomorphism is "a correspondence (relation) between objects or systems of objects expressing the equality of their structures in some sense"<fnref n="3" /> (cf. Givón (1985)), and "analogy between S and T is a one-to-one mapping between objects, properties, relations and functions in S and those in T".<fnref n="4" /> Non-arbitrariness involving these relations enables us to predict word meanings. E.g., a word form (sounds/graphemes in *moo*) is associated with the referent (a mooing cow) and bears some resemblance to its semantics ('the sound produced by a cow').

In recent years, the term systematicity has been increasingly used. It is understood as the statistical form-meaning regularities found in "localized form-meaning patterns" or "across the lexicon as a whole" (Gutiérrez, Levy, and Bergen, 2016, p. 2379). The content and status of the term has not yet been clearly defined since it is applied both to arbitrary and non-arbitrary form-meaning relationships. It is explained as arbitrary statistically regular patterning of sounds (Dingemanse et al., 2015) or as "strong, non-negligible lexicon-wide non-arbitrariness" (Gutiérrez, Levy, and Bergen, 2016, p. 2380). The 'information' nature of the term is identified in Pimentel et al. (2019, p. 1752) that estimates the mutual information between the form and the meaning of a linguistic sign, i.e., the word-form/semantic distance/similarity. The authors point out that systematicity can be understood more broadly—as an umbrella term for all cases of regular patterning in language. In that case, systematic relations are manifested in obligatory grammatical/semantic oppositions, e.g., in grammatical categories of case/number or semantic oppositions of hypernymy/hyponymy.

## 4. Non-Arbitrary Form-Meaning Relationships

Signifier/signified non-arbitrary relationships are studied in the theory of non-arbitrariness (iconicity). The research in the field of iconicity is extensive. Iconic and motivated signs are explored in language acquisition (Winter, Perlman, Perry, and Lupyan, 2017), cognitive (Wilcox, 2004) and neurolinguistic studies (Aryani, Jacobs, and Conrad, 2013); (Perniss and Vigliocco, 2014); (Monaghan, Shillcock, Christiansen, and Kirby, 2014), poetics (Tsur, 2002), etc. More and more studies focus on the evolutionary aspects of iconicity (Zlatev, Żywiczyński, and Wacewicz, 2020). In this and similar research, the authors define non-arbitrary form-meaning relationships, develop their classifications, and

<footnote n="2">2. http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Similarity&oldid=31636</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3. http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Isomorphism&oldid=21572</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/reasoning-analogy/</footnote>