Talk:SignWriting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.
This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deafness and Deaf culture.

For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] an Alphabet?

In which Sense is SSW an Alphabeth? Okay, if you define a sign as combination of Hold and Movement and mirror Hold to vowels and Movement to consonants, you can maybe interpret it like that, but Pictographic or Manual or Other would fit maaybe even better, wouldn't they? -- 89.166.166.232 22:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is alphabetic in that it expresses all of the "phonemes" of Sign Language: hand positions, eyebrow positions, motion, etc. It is not pictographic by any means. Sign Language is not mime. -- Evertype·✆ 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Sutton SignWriting represents the features of sign languages, not the phonemes. The symbols you memorize are definitely not the equivalent of phonemes. Take a look at this page comparing SignWriting with another system of notation: [1]. —Tox 05:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
From the ASL page:
"Phonology
Stokoe called the building blocks of signs 'cheremes', from the Greek cheir- 'hand' by analogy with the word phoneme. However, it has since been recognized that they are cognitively equivalent to the phonemes of oral languages, and since Stokoe's time the terms 'phoneme' and 'phonology' have been used for all languages, oral and sign.
These linguists have divided ASL signs into several elements or features: hand shape, palm orientation, hand movement, hand location, and non-manual features such as facial expression. In early theoretical approaches, movement was treated as simultaneous and/or sequential motions of the hand, on par with other features; while in many more recent approaches, movement is treated as the tempo of the language rather than as a feature per se: Signs are divided into segments of movement and hold, each of which consists of a set of the other features of hand shape, orientation, location, plus any non-manual features."
The parameters of signs; handshape, palm orientation, movement, location, and non-manuals; are what is being referred to as 'features', which are the equivalent of phonemes. Cwterp 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


What constitutes a segment in a signed language is still far from settled; therefore, what constitutes a phoneme is still up for grabs. Modern American Sign Language phonology uses Autosegmental phonology models (or analogues) to show how features and sub-features are processed to account for various phonological changes in ASL. In those models, "handshape" is not at the lowest tier of the model, since features like selected fingers, various orientations, internal (trilled) movements, ets. are even more basic. Signwriting considers finger selection to be part of handshape. and difficult to separate out. While this is perceptually valid, it does not reflect a phonological model. HamNoSys, however, makes base hand, selected fingers, etc. separately written symbols.
Furthermore, SW also captures reasonably well the Iconicity of signs. The SW transcription of the ASL sign TREE looks enough like the signed version of TREE to the point where the resemblance to an actual tree is still evident. This is not true of other notation systems of which I am aware. Yet, the SWML representation is still potentially searchable using XPath, XQuery and other schemes to be usable in document semantics. Dparvaz 2:00 15 August 2007 (EST)

[edit] Wikipedia in American Sign Language proposed

Please see meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia American Sign Language 2. Thank you.--Pharos 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Would it be possible to include images of this system in use, possibly comparing the alphabet with images with their related hand shapes? Cheers, Mak (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some files with things I have written in SignWriting, however I am unsure of the licensing issues. I created the writing using Software from the SignWriting.org website. I will check with them to see if they can help with the licensing stuff. I also have a picture comparing all the basic handshapes as set out by Stokoe with their SignWriting equivalents, but I don't remember where I got the picture, so Licensing there is probably not possible... --Cwterp 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If you created the images they are yours to do with as you wish. SignWriting makes software available so you can write with it. I am quite certain there is no licencinc issue for text you create yourself. -- Evertype·✆ 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have uploaded the file, how do I link it to this article? I am new here at Wikipedia... Cwterp 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs expanding?

I made a couple small edits, but I think the thing needs a more major rewrite under Basic Principles. "Small symbols such as a star, a spiral, a dot, etc." aren't so much "additional information about the type of movement." They are contact symbols, indicating where hands and other body parts touch each other in the course of a sign. Information on the "small symbols" should be combined with paragraph 4, and paragraph 3 should go with paragraph 2, talking about the arrows. I am a new wikipedian, and I just want to make sure I am not reckless, just bold... Cwterp 19:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What you are describing is proper bold editing. Go for it! Mak (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hows that? Bold enough? Too much? I'm debating whether I need to mention that it is written vertically, with lanes... Cwterp 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks good! I think that its orientation etc. are important, and would make sense to add. You might see if you can find important words/concepts to wikilink, such as handshape like this - [[handshape]]. Mak (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem section problem

The problem section is at the top of the article, perhaps it should be at the end? -Steve

[edit] Problem 1

The spatial layout of SignWriting requires special software for it to be used with a word processor for simple text, and presently there is limited software support.

[edit] Discussion

I agree with the description, but not the title. This is not a problem, but a challenge. -Steve 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Problem" or "challenge", it's still fair to mention this issue somewhere—but whether it's in a 'problem' section or not is another issue. I, and many other Wikipedians, have a huge amount of respect for the SignWriting community, but we still have to follow our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Of course, we should also update about the new software.--Pharos (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem 2

The lack of overt phonemic structure or standardized orthography makes alphabetization difficult. For example, the hand used to sign a word makes no difference to the meaning, but it does change the spelling.

[edit] Discussion 1

Many linguistic terms are problematic for sign language because most terms were defined for voiced languages specifically rather than language in general. Phonetic and phonemic are special problems since the root word phone means sound. SignWriting can capture phonetic information when written by hand. SignWriting captures phonemic information when written by computer. SignWriting by computer is not phonetic because a single symbol can represent more than one handshape. Specifically, the official symbol sets use 6 palm facings when there should really be 10. This simplification makes the writing system easier to use and more phonemic.

From the Phonology page... "Even though a language may make distinctions between a small number of phonemes, speakers actually produce many more phonetic sounds. Thus, a phoneme in a particular language can be pronounced in many ways."

Each hand shape with a particular rotation and palm facing is a phonetic visual. With the symbol set, the rotations in degrees are 0,45,90,135,180,..... A hand shape with a rotation of 30 degrees would use the same symbol as a rotation of 45 degrees. However, if writing by hand, the exact rotation of 30 degrees could be written, which is why I say that handwriting is more phonetic and computer writing is more phonemic.

My favorite terms are segments and streams. -Steve

[edit] Discussion 2

SignWriting does not lack a standardized orthography. The symbol sets are standardized and have been for most of SignWriting's history.

The writing rules are documented but still evolving. The term "SignSpelling" most often refers to the spelling rules for Signriting's orthography. Many lessons and best practices are available on the SignWriting.org website. There is an active discussion group. There are several text books for learning SignWriting available in several languages. It's valid to say that this information needs to be organized better and cleaned up a bit, but it is not valid to say that SignWriting lacks a standard orthography.

It is valid to say that signs do not have official spellings. The unofficial spellings may effect lookup but they wouldn't effect alphabetization. Alphabetization is standardized and effective. -Steve

[edit] Discussion 3

SignWriting excels at sorting (alphabetization). SignWriting does not sort by the spelling, it sorts by the sequence (official term is SignSpelling Sequence). A sign's spelling is spatial (2 dimensional). Sorting requires a order list from first to last. Sequential writing systems have the sorting built into the spelling. SignWriting requires an additional entry of the sequence. The sequence can use symbols contained in the sign's spelling, or it can use other symbols contained in the entire symbol set. There are even special sorting symbols that are not valid to use in a sign's spelling and can only be used in the sequence. Since the sequence is separate than the spelling, it is valid to give a sign multiple sequence's.

Alphabetization of SignWriting is not difficult. -Steve


[edit] Other discussion

Interestingly enough, the switch from observer's POV to signer's POV was a deaf request. -Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.161.82 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's something to put in the history, along with directionality. Maybe it reflects how SLs were approached - I'd simply assumed that you'd want to write from the signer's POV. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sign writers were not signers, but recorders. They would watch someone signing and then write what they saw. Later when deaf started writing, they explained that it was easier to write expressively. It was a change that met with some resistance, but the writing system is better off because of the change. -Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.161.82 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one other point, though. A standardized symbol set is not the same thing as a standardized orthography. The IPA is a standardized symbol set, but there are numerous ways to transcribe English in the IPA, both phonemic and phonetic. There are some rather nasty arguments here on Wikipedia about how English should or should not be put in the IPA. SignWriting isn't the same thing as SignWriting ASL, and it sounds as though there's a lot of variability in the SW community. That isn't necessarily a bad thing—English before Caxton was written however the writer saw fit—but it does cause difficulties. Actually, those difficulties may soon be a thing of the past, just as the problem with typography is now ancient history: with an electronic dictionary, the software could lead you to the entry no matter how you spell an entry. But I imagine that with a print dictionary, you often won't find an entry for a spelling you come across, which means you need to convert things in your head before you can look them up. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] SignWriting is not Pictographic

The orthography section states that SignWriting is pictographic. It is not. The words (or signs) are not pictures, but a spatial combination of symbols. SignWriting is iconic. The further statement of pictographic is not only redundant, but incorrect. -Steve 2008 March 22, 21:23 (UTC)

Technically correct, literally incorrect. The term 'pictographic' is used for glyphs that are pictures of what they symbolize, such as * to mean 'star'. SignWriting is pictographic in a broader sense, as most of its symbols are pictures of the articulators they represent. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SignWriting is not featural

Stating that SignWriting is featural is a misunderstanding of the rational behind the linguistic term "featural" and a misapplication of a spoken language example.

From the Writing Systems page, "A featural script represents finer detail than an alphabet. Here symbols do not represent whole phonemes, but rather the elements (features) that make up the phonemes, such as voicing or its place of articulation."

"Place of articulation" in a auditory language is not directly meaningful. Whereas "place of articulation" in a visual language IS directly meaningful. Consider the ASL signs for mother and father. The only difference between these 2 signs is the place of articulation. They both have the same hand shape and the same type of contact. One sign is performed on the chin while the other is performed on the forehead. This difference is phonemic rather than featural.

The featural system is more interested in how something is said rather than what is said. This is for auditory languages and does not make sense when applied to visual languages. In a auditory language, the meaning is in the sound. In a visual language, the meaning is in the appearance.

SignWriting uses complete hand shapes, which are meaningful. Individual fingers are not meaningful without consideration of the other fingers. Therefore, a writing system which used individual fingers could be called featural, but this is not SignWriting.

The most widely accepted featural writing system is Korean hangul. "In hangul, the featural symbols are combined into alphabetic letters, and these letters are in turn joined into syllabic blocks, so that the system combines three levels of phonological representation." The SignWriting symbols are combined to form whole words, rather than letters. In SignWriting, each symbol is meaningful without needing to be combined with another symbol to form meaning.

I'm still putting my thoughts together to best describe why SignWriting isn't featural. I think it is redundant to call a writing system for a visual writing system both "iconic" and "featural", with "iconic" being the better term when considering the rational behind the term "featural". -Steve 2008 March 22, 21:23 (UTC)

Your definition of 'featural' was designed for oral languages. It will obviously apply somewhat differently to sign languages. A 'feature' is a meaningful element which is not in itself phonemic. Voicing is a feature in oral languages; abduction is a feature in sign languages.
'Featural' is not the same as 'iconic'. Many of the motion glyphs, such as <*> for 'touch', are simply iconic. However, the handshape glyphs are featural as well, since they indicate individual fingers, which are sub-phonemic. Showing that the thumb is abducted in B is featural in the same way that showing the voicing in /b/ would be featural.
In hangul, what is featural is not the overall glyph, but the elements which make it up, such as an extra stroke for aspiration. Just as all aspirated Korean phonemes have that feature in their hangul glyphs, so all abducted ASL phonemes have that feature in their SignWriting glyphs. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SignWriting is an Iconic Script

With the current classification system, the most meaningful and accurate statement that can be made about SignWriting is that is an iconic script. -Steve 2008 March 22, 21:23 (UTC)

[edit] SignWriting is an Iconic Spatial Graphemic Script

The most accurate description that describes SignWriting's type of writing system is an "Iconic Spatial Graphemic Script". However, this term only appears in my as yet unreleased work "Binary SignWriting: a character encoding model".

The fact that SignWriting is iconic is a direct result of the visual nature of sign language in general. The distinctive feature of SignWriting is that the graphemes of the script are used spatially (not sequentially) to form words (or signs). Even the Writing Systems page does not acknowledge that graphemes can be used spatially. The directionality section states that writing systems are top to bottom, left to right, or visa versa. The completed words (or signs) of SignWriting are used directionally, but the symbols (or graphemes) are used spatially. This defining aspect is deserving of a new classification of writing system and "spatial graphemic" is the best description. -Steve 2008 March 22, 21:23 (UTC)