On Scripturology

Abstract

'pictographic', 'logographic', 'syllabic', or 'alphabetic' (see already Taylor, 1883). These types are often descriptively mismatched, 6 since they raise to the rank of systems individual functions of constitutive units, and thus do not take account of the necessarily composite character of systems strictly speaking (we shall come back to this issue in §3 below). In addition, these typologies 7 are generally found paired, consciously or otherwise, with a teleological perspective that envisages writing systems as attempts more or less resulting in or approximations more or less successful in the aim of achieving the alphabetic ideal (Sampson, 2016), 8 4. The appellation 'graphemology' would surely be too restrictive (to the extent that scripturology goes far beyond the study of graphemes alone; the same observation applies to Daniels' (2018) 'graphonomy' (cf. §2 below), and 'graphology' is obviously unavailable. The designation 'grammatology' is probably too charged with connotations inherited from Gelb (1952) and Derrida (1967). We are left with 'scripturology', even though the term is already used by medievalists to refer to the discipline occupied with the evolution and structures of medieval orthographic systems (the science of scripta, cf. Gossen, 1979), and by the communication sciences in the study of 'scripts'. 5. See nevertheless Heath (2016, p. 487), who highlights that this remained among the goals of J. Greenberg and that these morphological types have sometimes been replaced by other general criteria, such as the opposition OV vs. VO (Lehmann, 1973), 'head' vs. 'dependent-marking' (Nichols, 1986), or languages with ergative vs. non-ergative syntax (Dixon, 1979). 6. Sampson (2015, p. 42): "scripts which have evolved over long periods as the everyday writing systems of whole speech-communities or nations are almost always something of a mixture." We refer here to the classification of scripts on a continuum between pure phonography and pure logography proposed by DeFrancis & Unger (1994) and Unger & DeFrancis (1995). 7. An influential typology, resting on the debatable primacy (even universality) of the syllable, is currently that of Daniels (e.g., 2017, 2018), who proposes a classification in five types: (1) logosyllabic, (2) syllabic, (3) abjad, (4) alphabet, (5) abugida. 8. Sampson (2016, p. 562): "The idea that a logographic script might be a fully-fledged, entirely satisfactory mode of written communication scarcely entered the purview of these scholars."

White Flag Typography

“…Neef (ibid, passim) presents the discipline of 'graphematics' which could have been used in our title; however, although graphematics seems to be used widely in German and historical linguistics, it is practically unmentioned in the English linguistics literature. Klinkenberg (2018) suggested the establishment of a new discipline called scripturology, which involves the study of writing as a semiotic apparatus that articulates both language and spatial facts. This discipline encompasses both the physical form and content of writing and is governed by socialized rules that determine how writing is produced and interpreted within a given human community.…”

“…Neef (ibid, passim) présente la discipline de la 'graphématique' qui aurait pu être utilisée dans notre titre ; cependant, bien que la graphématique semble être largement utilisée en allemand et en linguistique historique, elle est pratiquement ignorée dans la littérature linguistique anglaise. Klinkenberg (2018) a suggéré l'établissement d'une nouvelle discipline appelée la scripturologie, qui implique l'étude de l'écriture en tant qu'appareil sémiotique articulant à la fois la langue et des faits spatiaux. Cette discipline englobe à la fois la forme physique et le contenu de l'écriture et est régie par des règles socialisées qui déterminent comment l'écriture est produite et interprétée au sein d'une communauté v humaine donnée.…”