<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
ASL Gloss can have its place as a rough translation that could be
cleaned up later. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. The
challenge comes when ASL would use classifers, mime, or other tools of
ASL in that sentence. Will the habit of glossing cause these valuable
features to be lost? That is my primary concern. Those features are
very valuable. Much of the weight of English's description words and
phrases would be translated by a classifier that is moved in a certain
way. The prepositional system of ASL is really spatial relations
between the two signs that are being related (the man is beside the car
would be the placement of the classifier for car and then a classifier
for a person. And it could be anywhere around that car.) So it is some
of these key elements of ASL grammar that are easily forgotten when we
think about glossing.<br>
<br>
But as a rough translation, it could be a starting place for those
whose first language or preferred language is English. But I'm still
wondering about the impact of that on true ASL literacy which should be
our first goal.<br>
<br>
I added some other comments below to Stephen's comments which I hit me
as I read this whole email ....<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Stuart<br>
<br>
<br>
Charles Butler wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040331152822.9168.qmail@web13707.mail.yahoo.com">
<div>As a medium for capturing nuance from English to sign, ASL Gloss
(English words in sign order with some editions) may make a good bridge
for a syntactically accurate translation program to work from English
to SW. The parsing for such a project will certainly be tremendous. I
am not so versed in ASL to be able to do so.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Method meaning no no equal English sign exact compare compare
ASL maybe maybe help communicate same same translate equal English
result SW. Break down list English word examine difficult WOW. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>That's my first attempt. Any feedback.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Charles Butler</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<b><i>Stephen Slevinski <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:slevin@PUDL.INFO"><slevin@PUDL.INFO></a></i></b> wrote:</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="replbq">Hi Val and list,<br>
<br>
SignWriting is superior to the alphabet for capturing language detail
during<br>
transcription. If you tell 10 people to sign "I love you", each using a<br>
different emotion, and faithfully transcribe what they sign, each<br>
SignWriting will be different: the facial expression, the exact hand<br>
placement, and other details. If you capture 10 people saying "I love
you",<br>
each spelling would be the same, and anything not the same is a spelling<br>
error.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
But ASL facial expressions is not simply emotion. It is also
grammatical detail.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040331152822.9168.qmail@web13707.mail.yahoo.com">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="replbq">And while it is possible to record an extraordinary
amount of detail with<br>
SignWriting, you must consider the reason for writing and what is
adequate.<br>
<br>
Purpose...<br>
There is a great book that I would love to translate into SignWriting.
"How<br>
to read a book" by Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Doren. It talks
about<br>
the four levels of reading: elementary, inspectional, analytical, and<br>
syntopical. Reading is not merely starting at the beginning and
finishing<br>
at the ending. This book clearly explains the reasons to support<br>
SignWriting over video.<br>
<br>
When you read something, you need to ask yourself what you are reading.
Is<br>
it practical or imaginative? Is it history, science, mathematics,<br>
philosophy, or social science?<br>
<br>
If you're reading a book on history, do you really need to see the smile<br>
when the author mentions America?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
If it is part of the nuance of the sign, yes. All of that brings to
life the signs and is one of the very valuable things of SignWriting
because it captures our language the way we use it. Sometimes, it is
not a sign that conveys meaning, but a body movement. I remember
reading (and it might have been on this list, I don't remember) about
someone who was taking questions on a stage. And a very controversial
question was asked. The speaker put his foot forward, hesitated, and
moved his foot back. Then he moved on to the next question. It was
clear what he said, "That is a very controversial question. I think I
will decline to answer that question." But it was done and understood
without a "sign" or even a "sign sentence". Those things are all
important when we translate into ASL in order to get the right picture.<br>
<br>
Even today, I was talking with someone about the concept of "rich".
There is "rich" as in wealth, but there can be "rich" as in generous
too. The meanings are very different. She used the concept in ASL for
wealth. But the person said, that doesn't make sense in ASL. So she
analyzed the sentence more and realize the point of the word "rich" in
that sentence pointed to generosity, not wealth. So it was important to
be sure the concept was coming across. <br>
<br>
Add to that things like verbal modifiers (changes in motion that change
the meaning of verbs). I go. I go a lot. I go (and it's very
boring). I go once in a while. I go all the time. I don't go. Are
you going? Wh--- are you going? All of these sentence can be signed
with the same verb, but different movement and/or facial expression
accompanying the verb to indicate the change in meaning. In fact the
last two questions can be signed with YOU GO in ASL gloss, but the
facial expression will decide if it is a Yes/No question or a
wh-question. Obviously a WH-sign would clear up the meaning, but it is
possible in the context of a sentence to understand the wh-sign meant.<br>
<br>
These are just examples of where facial expressions and/or body
language become important. This impacts our input methods because how
we think when we input may determine how much we utilize the richness
of ASL in our writing .... or not.<br>
<br>
Stuart<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040331152822.9168.qmail@web13707.mail.yahoo.com">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="replbq">Val wrote...<br>
---------------------------------<br>
Pasting from the dictionary is not good for ASL or any signed language.<br>
Each sign in a real SignSentence, has facial expressions that are<br>
specific to the placement in the sentence...in other words...in all<br>
dictionaries...certain grammar details are not in the dictionary...<br>
<br>
no dictionary replacement system, or ASL glossing system, can most
likely<br>
capture every grammar possibility that will come up in a
sentence...That is<br>
why<br>
typing directly in the language is better than pasting...<br>
---------------------------------<br>
<br>
For personal or poetic or persuasive writing, adding all of the extra
detail<br>
would be worth the time and effort. For this SignWriter is such a great<br>
tool.<br>
<br>
But for some types of writing, simple signs like those in the dictionary<br>
would be adequate. And these types of signs could be quickly typed in<br>
SignWriter without pasting from the dictionary. I believe these signs
could<br>
also be created with an adequate ASL gloss translator.<br>
<br>
Speaking of the ASL Gloss. I was thinking of how fictional novels
capture<br>
details that an English dictation cannot. This detail is added through<br>
description.<br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
"I'm fine"<br>
versus<br>
"I'm fine," she said with a tear in her eye.<br>
-------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
And while the facial expression for "who" is intertwined with the sign,
the<br>
facial expression for fine is not. Would it be possible to use facial<br>
expressions separate from signs? And use the facial expressions whenever<br>
the emotion changes?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040331152822.9168.qmail@web13707.mail.yahoo.com">
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="replbq">There is no official structure to gloss, so I'm trying
to create a structure<br>
that I can use to program the translator. I was thinking that facial<br>
expressions could be loosely classified as adverbs, and would therefore
end<br>
in -ly.<br>
<br>
So the SignWriting for "sadly" or "happyly" would be a facial
expression.<br>
So "sadly fine" would be qualitatively different than "happyly fine".<br>
<br>
SignWriter is superior, but a gloss could be adequate. And options are<br>
always good.<br>
<br>
-Stephen<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.pudl.info">www.pudl.info</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>