What Counts as Writing?

Reading for Reflection: Introduction: Writing and Recording Knowledge by Elizabeth Hill Boone


Looking at Pre-Colombian America and what they used as forms of communication raises the question of boundary lines between writing and art and between pre-literate and literate. Boone presents the idea that pictographs, hieroglyphic and other non-alphabetic Pre-Colombian fit into the definition of writing. This is a highly debated issue crossing fields between anthropologists, linguists and more.

I would agree that these markings are communication. I think that DeFrancis is completely off track in saying that "The forthwrite answer to how pictographs work as a system is they don't...It is at best exceedingly limited in what it can express and who is able to understand it." (7) My argument would be that they understood it. The civilization of the time new that those pictures had meaning outside of art. It can be paralleled to our society today using "Txting Tlk." That wouldn't be understood by the many other generations of people who didn't have texting. Even some older people still alive today can't understand it. 

I also disagree that notation systems should be included in the definition of writing. (9) It is just that, a notation, not writing. It does having meaning, but it is my opinion, much opposed to Boone, that to be writing it must have whatever passes as "words" in that society. (The social influence is another topic that could be discussed, though it may take another post at another time.) At the most, notations would be considered a form of writing, or non-traditional writing. 

The real issue I see when reading through is introduction is "What is Communication." This is related but not the same as "What is Writing." For example both notations and traditional writing are communication, but not necessarily writing. 

This post has barely scratched the surface of this issue and of my thoughts on the matter, but there is a whole semester yet to work on this all some more.