Writing Dialogues in Signed Languages

[Charles Butler]

In terms of, interaction with other writers, I heartily agree.  My joy in working as an editor of LIBRAS in Brazil was learning the language by editing documents written in it.  As the language is completely unfamiliar to me, I'd be going through simply reading it as sign writing, learning pronunciation by signing it as I went.  If I came up against a sign that looked ambiguous, or as if it were turned around in an awkward direction to the rest of the text (as if it were suddenly left-handed or a receptive sign, I'd stop, pause, question, and move on.  I took notes in lectures and expanded them later into full narrative.  This process was exactly my joy in being a lecturer/professor in Brazil learning a new signed language.
 
Charles Butler


Steve Slevinski <slevin at signpuddle.net> wrote:
Hi Antônio Carlos,

Regarding dictionaries and editors...

> Antônio Carlos wrote...
>
> I think this is another important point that french sign linguists 
> are making, and that the SignWriting community has to think about:
> - should dictionaries be really present in SW text editors?
> - should they be easily accessible to support text writing?
> - or, should they be provided as a very separate feature, to be used 
> just for consultation purposes as conventional printed dictionaries of 
> oral languages are?
> - should SW text editors should have auto-completion features like 
> conventional text editors have?

Dictionaries integrated into an editor are a sticky point for 
SignWriting. Depending on the audience, there are a whole list of pros 
and cons. Dictionaries can help with speed and standard spellings. 
However, dictionary can promote lazy writing and disrupt thought. 
Ultimately, I think a SW text editor needs an integrated dictionary. 
The important consideration is the interface between the two. (But 
that's a whole other topic.)

That being said, I think the best editor available for SignWriting is 
pencil and paper. Nothing stands between the writer and the writing. 
The writer either knows the symbols and the conventions or the writer 
isn't ready to write. If the writer doesn't know how to write 
something, they can try their best or make a note and then more on. I 
don't think a dictionary should be consulted for the first draft, that 
would only interference with the writer's ideas. Write quickly, then edit.

Many of the ideas I'm discussing apply to an original writer - a person 
putting ideas on paper. (Transcription is a different process and an 
additional topic.)

An original peice of writing is not one solitary task. The two largest 
divisions of writing are expansion and contraction. Researching ideas 
expands the posibilities. An outline contracts. Writing the first 
draft expands. Editing the first draft contracts. Writing the second 
draft expands again. And so on.

So let's assume that a writer has finished a short story in SignWriting 
on paper. What's the best way to computerize that writing? I think a 
good analogy is Computer Aided Drafting. Glossing (or some other 
technique) could create a quick rough draft. Next, each sign could be 
tweaked or rewritten to match the paper version, or signs could be used 
based on the dictionary. Signs not in the dictionary could then be added.

Using the dictionary in this way would not limit the ideas of the 
writer, but open them to learning from others. The writer and the 
dictionary would work and polish each other. Standardization would 
happen naturally. Signers wouldn't be told what their langauge 
contains, they would discover their langauge by interacting with all of 
the other writers.

a few random thoughts...
-Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050915/07493bf7/attachment.htm>