Script and alphabet are definitely distinct terms. Rick has
distinguished them thus:
RM>- script / alphabet
A script is a collection of written symbols viewed as a unit.
An alphabet is the complete collection of such symbols used for
a particular purpose, such as a single language. Generally,
"alphabet" implies that it is a collection of units
representing phonological units, rather than syllabic units.
The term "syllabary" is preferred for the latter. "Alphabet"
is often used in normal discourse to mean "script", but
technically speaking in the standard, they are different. The
"Latin Alphabet" technically refers ONLY to the subset of the
"Latin Script" which is used to write the "Latin Language".
I'm not entirely happy with this, though this may be the case
in part to not being sure exactly what he means at certain
points. (More on this below.)
I think it's important to distinguish script from writing
system. I have come across other sources that also make this
distinction and which give definitions that are pretty similar
to the definitions I've arrived at. Here are the definitions of
script and writing system that I currently work with:
Script: A maximal collection of characters used for writing
languages or for transcribing linguistic data that have graphic
representations that share common characteristics of
appearance, that share a common set of typical behaviours, that
have a common history of development, and that would be
identified as being related by some community of users.
By this definition, Latin is a script, Thai is a script, etc.
Writing system: An implementation of a script for a particular
purpose, e.g. for writing a particular language. A writing
system uses some subset of the characters of the script on
which it is based with most or all of the behaviours typical to
that script and possibly certain behaviours that are peculiar
to that particular writing system.
By this definition, the English alphabet is a writing system,
and the French alphabet is a different writing system; Standard
Lao writing is a writing system, and Tai Dam written with Lao
script is a different writing system; etc.
In my current thinking, writing system and orthography are
distinct. Orthographies are writing systems that are used for
writing languages for purposes of broad communication, as
opposed to technographies, for example, which are used to
transcribe linguistic data for research purposes. John
Mountford ("A Functional Classification", in Daniels & Bright,
1996, pp. 627 - 32) gives a 5-way typology of writing systems,
of which I have mentioned 2 types.
Mountfords typology is a functional typology of writing
systems. There are also structural typologies of scripts that
have been proposed. Peter Daniels ("The Study of Writing
Systems", in Daniels & Bright, 1996, pp. 3 - 17) provides an
interesting (though not undisputed) 6-way typology of scripts:
- logosyllabary (e.g. Chinese)
- abjad (e.g. Arabic)
- syllabary (e.g. Katakana)
- abugida (e.g. Ethiopic)
- alphabet (e.g. Latin)
- featural system (e.g. Hangul)
(These terms can also be applied to writing systems.) An
alphabet, then, is just one structural type of script.
I the explanation Rick gave, the term "alphabet" is used in a
way that could be confused with "writing system", though he is
correct is saying that the characters in an alphabet represent
phonological units and that the characters in a syllabary
represent syllabic units. Admitedly, "alphabet" is commonly
used in a way that equates it with "writing system", as when
people refer to the "Latin alphabet". I'd suggest, however,
that for our purposes we need to adopt more careful usage of
terminology, as would commonly be done in any research
endeavour. Thus my reservations about Rick's statement.
Non-Roman Script Intiative, SIL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:44 EDT