[sw-l] SignWriter - feature "gloss" input method

Ingvild Roald iroald at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Jun 1 08:37:27 UTC 2005

I must say I agree with Barbara. In addition, if deaf childeren were to use
glosses, they might think that 1) this is an ok way to write English /
Italian / Norwegian/ ....
2) Sign Language is inferior to English / Italian / Norwegian / ....

As an educator, I know that you should *never*, and I mean *never* leave
annything that is wrong on the blacboard for any period of time, as that
will tend to fix the error in the mind of the learner, rather than correct

When glossing is used in translation / transcription of foreign languages,
it is normal to do so with the actual original text in the original language
on the same page, on the line above the glossing, which is then an
intermideate step in transcripition. It is of course possible to first write
a text in English / Italian / Norwegain / ..., and then gloss it in the
appropriate SL, before translating it to the SL. But then the glosses would
be written signs, not written words ...


>From: "Barbara Pennacchi" <barbara.pennacchi at istc.cnr.it>
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>Subject: Re:  [sw-l] SignWriter - feature "gloss" input method
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:19:07 +0000
>On 31.05.05 11:56, Tomá¹ Klapka wrote:
>>My idea is to add one more method of input, "gloss" input method.
>I'm not talking about signpuddle specifically, I'm talking about the
>concept of "glossing" signs in general.
>I'm sorry, but after so many years of working side by side with sign
>language researchers and teachers, my opinion about the (ab)use of glosses
>in almost any sign-related field is very very very very low.
>I *do* really wish we'd all start weaning ourselves from these. I do
>really want do wean myself, at least (grin)
>Glosses do not solve the problem of "rebuilding" in one's own mind a
>specific sign made by someone else, in absence of visually-supporting
>material. Glosses tend to add more ambiguity. Glosses do not help people
>visualize the 4dimensionality of sign language.
>And how about the presence of multiple synonyms? Would glosses such as
>"DROP" "LET-IT-FALL" "ABANDON" point to the same or to different signs?
>And how about using glosses from a strongly "gendered" language such as
>spanish, french or italian (which don't have the neutral gender) for sign
>language that tend instead to be genderless?
>Furthermore, in some cases, the use of glosses is suspected of influencing
>non-deaf people into translating sentences from their own mono-dimensional
>language into our 4dimensional language, word by word, before actually
>signing the sentence.... (I'm being sarcastic here, folks)
>But this is only my opinion. And I'm having a real bad day here at work so
>forgive me for my bluntness. Nothing personal here, ok?
>(BTW: it bugs me that Sign Puddle forces me to give a gloss to signs in
>order to save 'em, but I know it is because of technical reasons --
>"Unicode, where the heck art thou?")
>| Barbara Pennacchi               barbara.pennacchi (at) istc.cnr.it |
>|                 Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche                 |
>|         Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione          |
>|       Via S. Martino della Battaglia 44, 00185 Roma, Italia        |
>|                      http://www.istc.cnr.it/                       |

More information about the Sw-l mailing list