machine translation and SignWriting
slevin at SIGNPUDDLE.NET
Fri Mar 9 14:18:25 UTC 2012
Their object to SignWriting seems to be that people 1) computers can't
animate it and 2) most people don't read it.
/In terms of its suitability as a candidate for use in an [Example
Base Machine Translation] system, SignWriting lacks the explicit
linguistic detail necessary for the generation of signs using an
This is false. You can check out the VSign project from 2004:
The 2-dimensional nature of SignWriting is easy for a human to
understand, but difficult for a computer. It is possible to animate
simple sign using only the 2-dimensional layout of symbols. For more
complicated signs, it is possible to utilized the SignSpelling Sequence
to order the action, position the symbols, and add extra information
/Annotated corpora on the other hand have the potential to carry
varying degrees of granularity of linguistic detail, therefore
bypassing the need to translate using SignWriting and then deriving
such details from the resulting SignWriting symbol.
I'm not sure why they see SignWriting as an intermediate step. The
paper clearly states that documentation should be provided in a person's
native language so that they can read it in their native language.
Watching a video is not reading. Handing out a piece of paper is not
the same as requiring a computer terminal.
/Another issue with SignWriting is that the majority of signers are
unfamiliar with it which lowers its appeal for use as final output
This may support the idea of including the animation in the beginning,
but it does not negate the need for written material for people to read.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sw-l