new sign transcription system

[Angus Grieve-Smith]

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Dan I. SLOBIN wrote:

> This is still work in progress, and we look forward to feedback in
> further development and application of the system.

        This is a very useful project!  I hope I can provide some useful
feedback.


>         - linear representation on a continuous typed line, using
>           only ASCII characters

        This is very important for all transcription/writing systems.  It
is possible to use non-ASCII systems (such as SignFont or SignWriting),
but the convenience of ASCII for email and various searching and
concordance programs is significant.


>         - consistently morphological representation (avoiding both
>           phonological representation and glosses in English or
>           other spoken languages)

        Okay, I don't understand this.  The expamples in the .pdf file
were full of glosses.  Do you mean not using glosses to indicate bound
morphemes?  And why do you want to avoid phonological representation?


>         - full representation of elements of polymorphemic verbs
>         - representation of manual and non-manual elements
>         - representation of gaze direction, role shift, visual attention
>         - representation of gestures and other communicative acts
>         - notation of characteristics of adult-child interaction
>           (child-directed signing, errors, overlap, self-correction)

        These all seem to work.  After a few minutes of study I was able
to figure out most of what was going on in those transcripts, still
needing to go back and look at the explanations several times, but I think
if I worked with this system on a regular basis I could pick it up.  The
codes used are not particularly transparent, but that's fine.

        As a longtime supporter of phonological notation, I have to add a
couple of words about the use of glosses.  I'm sure you've all heard the
various arguments both ways, so I won't go into them.  I just want to say
that your system is in fact compatible with ASCII-based phonological
notations, so you might want to make the "English gloss" requirement more
flexible.  The second point is that the use of all caps in glossing is
nothing more than a convention, and in fact it's the same arbitrary
convention that means "shouting" in email.  I'd say it's easier to dispose
of that convention than to tell everyone they have to use the "+k" flag in
their searches.

        Again, it's great to have something that will allow us to put
signed-language data into CHILDES!  Looking forward to seeing everyone's
corpora on line soon.

--
                                        -Angus B. Grieve-Smith
                                        Linguistics Department
                                        University of New Mexico
                                        grvsmth at unm.edu