Sign Proccessing Software

[Charles Butler]

To counterpoint Dan, "sign processing" IS like "speech processing."  Precisely.  If I process "speech" into "writing" using a microchip recognition system and have it type English words, then I'm "speech processing" into a commonly recognized English writing system. If that same speech chip went through another step and produced ASL concepts in SW, then it would still be speech processor, but the end result would be in a separate language (translation) and a different mode (sign) and it could be called "sign processing".  ASL is not English, but writing systems are the compromise both have created to communicate to someone not present.

So English "word processor" transforms to "sign editor"
SW "sign processor" would be more of a "speech processor".

I'm an editor, so a system that allows one to parse and then reproduce is "editing."

Just my stab at a common language of understanding.  As we have, through use, determined that Sign Writing is the process of putting sign language on paper, just as typewriting is putting a vocal language on paper, then processing the signwriting typography needs its own terminology.  We call one of the reproduction programs the SW-Edit program, we could call the ongoing input systems Sign Editors and we are at least consistent. Signo Editoro as opposed to Signo Escritoro.



Dan Parvaz <dparvaz at MAC.COM> wrote:
> this would mean that the name Sign Language, would have to be changed to
> Word Language, and the term SignWriting would have to be changed to
> WordWriting...and would deaf people really recognize that we are talking
> about signed languages

That would be true if "Sign" and "Word" actually referred to the same
things in different modalities. But they don't the counterpart to "Sign"
is "Speech" So the counterpart of a signed language is a spoken langauge.
Sign processing then is like speech processing... which has nothing to do
with what SW does. Both signed and spoken languages have words. The ASL
word for "ASL word" is what we usually gloss as SIGN, which is also used
to mean "sign language." But to yank that into English in the form of
"sign processing" is to buy into the gloss.

The Navajo word for langauge is "bizaad", which also means "words". So
"Dine bizaad" = "The Navajo/Dine, their words". But no one would call a
text processor of Navajo a "langauge" processor or a "bizaad" processor.

Anyway, there's a counterpoint. Bet you always wanted one of those :-)

-Dan.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20040617/a0158619/attachment.htm>