AW: Dictionaries: signs, heads, and facial expressions

[Stefan Woehrmann]

Hi Stuart,

"Maybe I'll sit down and write up some examples in SW so you can see the
difference."

Yes!!!!


"Again, I am talking from ASL perspective, but it may be the same or
different in LSQ or DGS or any of the other 114 different sign languages."

... it is almost the same in DGS ! - ...

Stefan ;-)

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: SignWriting List [mailto:SW-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA]Im Auftrag von
Stuart Thiessen
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Juni 2004 06:07
An: SW-L at ADMIN.HUMBERC.ON.CA
Betreff: Re: Dictionaries: signs, heads, and facial expressions


Well, actually, facial expressions and body movements frequently serve a
grammatical function (at least in ASL).  For example, this sentence can
be signed the same in ASL with only facial expressions changing the meaning.

YOU GO.
YOU GO?

By contrast, in English, we must have additional words to make the
sentence grammatical even if the meaning is understood.

Another aspect is the use of topics in ASL. From what I understand,
there is still some debate about how many topic/comment structures there
are in ASL, but as far as I understand, most if not all have a facial
expression that is "added" to the sign(s) that belong in the topic
portion of the sentence. This "topic" marker will only be added to the
sign if it belongs in that topic portion of the sentence. Otherwise, the
sign will have whatever facial expression it normally has.

Still another example is the use of facial expressions to indicate
gradations of size, distance, or other modifier. While the sign may stay
the same, the facial expression is the key to understanding the
gradation of that sign. Keith Cagle has an excellent workshop called
"The Thousand Faces of ASL" where he explained a lot of these kinds of
things.  I saw it back in 2000. It was very fascinating.

Maybe I'll sit down and write up some examples in SW so you can see the
difference.

Again, I am talking from ASL perspective, but it may be the same or
different in LSQ or DGS or any of the other 114 different sign languages.

Thanks,

Stuart

Stephen Slevinski wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> With sign language, would it be valid to divide the various signs into 4
> categories?
>
> Facial expressions: www.pudl.info/dict/asl/happily.gif
> Signs that need facial expressions: www.pudl.info/dict/asl/who.gif
> Signs that need heads: www.pudl.info/dict/asl/deaf.gif
> Signs that do not need heads: www.pudl.info/dict/asl/sign.gif
>
> When writing, any sign can have a facial expression attached to it, but a
> dictionary does not need to have each sign combined with each facial
> expression.
>
> This type of dictionary could be used for writing signs directly.  If you
> type a sign, you could then ask for the common facial expressions for the
> sign.
>
> It could also be used with gloss.  Translating "father" in ASL:
> www.pudl.info/dict/asl/father.gif (a sign that needs a head).  But you
could
> translate "happily-father" : www.pudl.info/dict/asl/dad.gif, which is a
> combination of a sign that needs a head and a facial expression.

Again, with gloss, we will run into the problem of known equivalents of
a sign. I wouldn't have associated "happily-father" with "Dad".  The
same is true of one gloss in the SW-DOS dictionary. It was glossed as a
variant of "etc", but one deaf person in our group said she would never
have guessed it as "etc" but as "details". So, mapping the semantic
domains of two languages so that you can use one to produce the other
has its own limitations.

All that aside, it may be possible that you have "dad" in the topic
section of a sentence.  Now we have to ask how do the cheremes/phonemes
(GRIN) of the facial expressions interact when they combine in that
instance?  Do they all appear?  Do any drop? Do they appear in sequence?
  Those nuances of the language will significantly impact the ability to
combine facial expressions in a given instance. It is possible that this
example isn't the best, but there may be other examples that may work
better.

The same is actually true of signs that can be modified by adding
movement such as the difference between GO, ATTEND (GO-OFTEN),
GO-OCCASIONALLY. Sometimes the additional movement that ASL expects
modifies the way the sign is produced because of various rules of the
language.  Thus, it is not a simple matter of adding a movement, but the
matter of how those cheremes/phonemes combine. Then the question becomes
..... do we write what we see (ATTEND) or do we write how it is to be
combined (GO + OFTEN)? Again, there are better examples, but this is a
quick response to the question.

Spoken languages have similar situations when certain sounds come
together and end up changing to other sounds, or dropping one or the
other.  So it is not surprising that sign languages would have something
similar though more complex it seems.

Does that make sense?

> Just thinking out loud,
> -Stephen Slevinski
> www.oculog.net

It's always good to think through these things. We have to understand
how things go together to understand solutions.

SMILE,

Stuart