<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16640" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Dear members of
this list,<BR><BR>I would like to ask you a question, which may sound quite
simple, but when <BR>asking around people involved in linguistics research, or
when browsing the <BR>internet by myself, I cannot find any proper clue to
answer it...<BR><BR>What are Anvil's and Elan's pluses and minuses, regarding
annotation of sign <BR>language in dialogical setting?<BR><BR>Researchers I
asked told me that Anvil has a better ergonomy, others tell me <BR>that Elan
"must" be used when one wants to work properly with sign <BR>languages, but when
I ask for more elaborated replies, all seems very vague <BR>and
blurry...!<BR><BR>I have tried to approach those two tools by myself, but being
profoundly <BR>XML-impaired, I couldn't really assess which one would suit my
needs best...<BR><BR>I currently work on French Tactile SL used by
Deafblind signers, my corpus <BR>consisting on video captures by one to three
cameras. I need to annotate SL <BR>sequences where we see the two signers
simultaneously, as my corpus is only <BR>made of dialogues, and most of my work
deals with interaction, backchannel <BR>feedback, turn taking...<BR><BR>If you
feel that this thread won't be of interest for the members of the <BR>list,
please reply to me privately at </FONT><A
href="mailto:sandrine.schwartz@gmail.com"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>sandrine.schwartz@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>.<BR><BR>Thanks in advance for your help.<BR><BR>Best
regards<BR><BR>Sandrine Schwartz, PhD Candidate in Linguistics, Paris 8
University, France. </FONT><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>