SW: cheremic writing; alphabetic orthographies: phonemic writing (hard-data research on deaf processing in Libras & Portuguese)

Fri Nov 6 18:13:49 UTC 2009

Dear Erika:
 I have written extensively (unfortunately most papers and books are in
Portuguese, including Volume 8 of my Brazilian Sign Language Encyclopedia)
on the need for a cheremic writing system (such as Sutton's SignWriting) for
sign languages in order to allow deaf children to enjoy conditions  similar
to those of the hearing. For hearing children the alphabetical writing
(English orthography) maps their oral-aural language (Spoken English). Upon
literacy acquisition in an alphabetical writing system (such as the
Portuguese orthography), hearing children become able to map the
visemic-lalemic-phonemic properties of their spoken Portuguese. By the same
token, upon learning to read and write signs in SW, deaf children become
able to map the cheremic-visual properties of their sign language (e.g.,
Libras). At the Cognitive Neuropsycholinguistic Lab of the U. of Sao Paulo,
over the last 20 years, I have conducted a vast number of experiments on
deaf language and deaf cognition pertaining visemic processing, lalemic
processing, sign processing, reading acquisition, spelling acquisition,
memory development, lexical development, etc, that give strong support to
the use of SW in deaf education.
In case you read Portuguese, perhaps you may be interested in consulting
some of the links below. In case you do not read Portuguese, a number of
abstracts are provided. They give you access to vast segments of the
Encyclopedia volume 8, and the Dictionary volumes 1 and 2, which discuss
deaf cognition and deaf language development and processing. SW is one of
the many topics that are examined in those volumes. You may also find much
help in volumes 4, 3, 2, 1 (they may also be consulted via Internet - at
least vast parts of them). In addition to that, my Libras Dictionary
(volumes 1 and 2 bring 3 chapters devoted to discussing SW and its
importance). You may also have access to those volumes (or parts of them)
via Internet. See reference and links below
Capovilla, F. C., and W. D. Raphael, eds. 2001. *Dicionário enciclopédico
ilustrado trilíngue da Língua de Sinais Brasileira: Vols. 1 (Sinais de A a
L) & 2 (Sinais de M a Z)*. [Trilingual illustrated encyclopedic dictionary
of Brazilian Sign Language, Vols. 1 and 2] São Paulo: Edusp, FAPESP,
Fundação Vitae, Feneis, Brasil Telecom. Volume One: ISBN
85-314-0600-5<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/8531406005>Volume
Two: ISBN
85-314-0603-X <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/853140603X>

Sincerely,
Fernando Capovilla, PhD
Psychology Professor
University of Sao Paulo

(the first half of volume 8 depicts signs along with their SW renditions;
the second part of volume 8 brings a 400-500 chapter devoted to deaf
cognitive processing theory and deaf labguage assessment tools and data)

Encyclopedia vol 8

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=HV77emkREiUC&pg=PA777&lpg=PA777&dq=capovilla+enciclopedia+libras+vol.+8&source=bl&ots=zlaw9NU9Bf&sig=hGQTiuoZcG-FxDIdRSkZCxXjhOU&hl=pt-BR&ei=LGD0SsGAD8Go8AaXmpHzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Dictionary

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=25zeGebRhNcC&pg=PA1557&lpg=PA1557&dq=capovilla+libras&source=bl&ots=5IrqhsOraW&sig=ec-oAHQt6eWXeH8Ziri7jz8I-Zg&hl=pt-BR&ei=OmP0StagIo_Q8QaDz7jzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=capovilla%20libras&f=false

some papers<http://books.google.com.br/books?id=25zeGebRhNcC&pg=PA1557&lpg=PA1557&dq=capovilla+libras&source=bl&ots=5IrqhsOraW&sig=ec-oAHQt6eWXeH8Ziri7jz8I-Zg&hl=pt-BR&ei=9mP0SuqCOcik8Qby7pnzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=capovilla%20libras&f=false>

http://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs2/index.php/psicologia/article/view/3252

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1298027

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbee/v12n2/a05v12n2.pdf

http://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs2/index.php/psicologia/article/viewFile/3252/2612

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/261/26110103.pdf

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-65382006000200005&script=sci_arttext

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-294X2005000100003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

http://observatorio.inep.gov.br/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=35

http://www.mackenzie.br/fileadmin/Editora/Revista_Psicologia/Teoria_e_Pratica_Volume_6_-_Numero_2/v6n2_art1.pdf

in case you may be interested in acquiring via Internet from several
bookstores

vol 1

http://www.martinsfontespaulista.com.br/site/busca_proaut.aspx?pag=1&ac=9825
http://www.livrariaresposta.com.br/v2/produto.php?id=57883&origem=1

vol 3

http://www.jacotei.com.br/enciclopedia-da-lingua-de-sinais-brasileira-o-mundo-do-surdo-em-libras-vol-3-capovilla-fernando-cesar-raphael-walkiria-duarte-8531408555.html

vol 8

http://compare.buscape.com.br/enciclopedia-da-lingua-de-sinais-brasileira-vol-8-o-mundo-de-surdo-em-libras-palavras-de-funcao-gramatical-fernando-cesar-capovilla-walkiria-duarte-raphael-8531409020.html

vol 4

http://www.edusp.com.br/detlivro.asp?ID=408700

vol 2

http://compare.buscape.com.br/enciclopedia-da-lingua-de-sinais-brasileira-vol-2-o-mundo-dos-surdos-em-libras-artes-e-culturaesportes-fernando-cesar-capovilla-walkiria-duarte-raphael-8531408490.html

dictionary

http://eduspweb.usp.br/detlivro.asp?ID=408700

http://www.martinsfontespaulista.com.br/site/detalhes.aspx?ProdutoCodigo=270899

http://www.planetanews.com/produto/L/100988/dicionario-enciclopedico-ilustrado-trilingue-da-lingua-de-sinais----fernando-cesar-capovilla---walkiria-duarte-raphael.html

http://www.hucitec.com.br/loja/produtos_descricao.asp?lang=pt_BR&codigo_produto=2758

http://www.saocamilo-sp.br/pdf/mundo_saude/34/recursos_reabilitacao.pdf

http://www.alfaebeto.com.br/BLOG/post_valeapenaler.php?id=87

http://www.app.com.br/portalapp/imprensa/edu_alunos_nao_ouvintes.pdf

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=25zeGebRhNcC&pg=PA1557&lpg=PA1557&dq=capovilla+libras&source=bl&ots=5IrqhsOraW&sig=ec-oAHQt6eWXeH8Ziri7jz8I-Zg&hl=pt-BR&ei=9mP0SuqCOcik8Qby7pnzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=capovilla%20libras&f=false

2009/11/6 <sw-l-request at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>

> Send SW-L mailing list submissions to
>        sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        sw-l-request at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        sw-l-owner at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SW-L digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. common criticisms of signwriting? (Erika Hoffmann)
>   2. Re: common criticisms of signwriting? (Valerie Sutton)
>   3. Re: common criticisms of signwriting? (Cherie Wren)
>   4. Re: common criticisms of signwriting? (Trevor Jenkins)
>   5. Re: common criticisms of signwriting? (Steve Slevinski)
>
>
> ---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
> From: "Erika Hoffmann" <erhoffma at oberlin.edu>
> To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:40:22 -0500
> Subject: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
> Hi! I mentioned the last time I posted that I'm working on a paper
> about SignWriting for presentation at the American Anthropological
> Association meeting in December.
> One of the things I'm thinking about is the ways in which Signwriting
> and Signwriten documents can be used to critique dominant ideologies
> about language and writing that are common in Linguistics and related
> disciplines. At the same time, I want to note that the radical nature
> of the script can sometimes be a social barrier to its adoption by
> signers (particularly because of the historical relationship between
> the Linguistic validation of sign languages with the social validation
> of Deaf signers).
> I'm wondering if any of you would be willing to share some of the ways
> you've heard people criticize or dismiss SSW (or point me to places
> where these opinions are aired). I'm looking for people's concerns
> about the script itself (i.e., "it looks like hieroglyphics") rather
> than the other common arguments about the need for a script at all
> (i.e., "Deaf people can just write in English").
> Thanks!
> Best,
> Erika
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
> From: "Valerie Sutton" <sutton at signwriting.org>
> To: "SignWriting List" <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:50:57 -0800
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
> SignWriting List
> November 5, 2009
>
> Hello Erika!
> Thanks for this question. The controversial nature of all new ideas can be
> puzzling sometimes, but I think it is a part of human nature to be skeptical
> of anything we do not have familiarity with...
>
> I actually do not think that comments from people who do not know
> SignWriting should cause too much concern...it is only natural that certain
> reactions happen...like "it looks like Chinese"....
>
> You are right that people do say that it looks like hieroglyphics...but i
> see that as a positive thing, although I try to explain why it is not
> hieroglyphics from a technical point of view and most of them immediately
> say that they didn't realize that SignWriting wrote body movement...most
> people compare it to Chinese very fast, but that is only because it is
> written down in vertical columns and because they see visual clusters of
> symbols in both writing systems, but when I point out that SignWriting is
> not writing concepts, but instead we are writing body parts moving in space,
> and the people who know each sign language have to attach to those
> movements, the meanings that go with them in their specific language, where
> in Chinese a person who speaks a rare dialect far away, can still write
> concepts in Chinese, and there is no connection in their writing, to how
> they pronounce their words...therefore SignWriting is alphabetical and not
> logographic...but all that conversation is too complex for most
> people...most people say something like it looks like Chinese or
> heiroglyphics only in passing...but as soon as they sit down for five
> minutes and learn the dark and light palm facing and a few movement symbols,
> they realize it is different...
>
> I am printing books on my home computer right now...the first 7 chapters of
> the Gospel According to John in ASL are being printed and bound with
> laminated covers...I am doing them all myself in two sizes...big book size
> and a half-size that is more like the size of Bibles, and I am sending
> copies to the Vatican for a conference on November 19th. I have already sent
> copies to Malta to Marie and Maria to take with them to the Vatican for the
> conference. Once I am done printing, I will be happy to send a few of you
> some copies of the book. It will also be available for download and for sale
> shortly on the web and I will announce this when it is ready -
>
> Hope others will answer Erika's question -
>
> Thank you Erika!
>
> Val ;-)
>
> --------
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Erika Hoffmann wrote:
>
> Hi! I mentioned the last time I posted that I'm working on a paper
>> about SignWriting for presentation at the American Anthropological
>> Association meeting in December.
>> One of the things I'm thinking about is the ways in which Signwriting
>> and Signwriten documents can be used to critique dominant ideologies
>> about language and writing that are common in Linguistics and related
>> disciplines. At the same time, I want to note that the radical nature
>> of the script can sometimes be a social barrier to its adoption by
>> signers (particularly because of the historical relationship between
>> the Linguistic validation of sign languages with the social validation
>> of Deaf signers).
>> I'm wondering if any of you would be willing to share some of the ways
>> you've heard people criticize or dismiss SSW (or point me to places
>> where these opinions are aired). I'm looking for people's concerns
>> about the script itself (i.e., "it looks like hieroglyphics") rather
>> than the other common arguments about the need for a script at all
>> (i.e., "Deaf people can just write in English").
>> Thanks!
>> Best,
>> Erika
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________
>>
>> SW-L SignWriting List
>>
>> Post Message
>> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>
>> List Archives and Help
>> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>>
>> Change Email Settings
>> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
> From: "Cherie Wren" <cwterp at yahoo.com>
> To: "SignWriting List" <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:20:08 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
>  One I've seen pretty often, although I don't know if its the kind you
> want, is that "You can't write my language."  I think its a point of pride
> that ASL is so different that there is no way you could possibly reduce it
> to symbols on paper...  Of course that is easily proven wrong.
>
> cherie
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Erika Hoffmann <erhoffma at oberlin.edu>
> *To:* sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> *Sent:* Thu, November 5, 2009 3:40:22 PM
> *Subject:* [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
>
> Hi! I mentioned the last time I posted that I'm working on a paper
> about SignWriting for presentation at the American Anthropological
> Association meeting in December.
> One of the things I'm thinking about is the ways in which Signwriting
> and Signwriten documents can be used to critique dominant ideologies
> about language and writing that are common in Linguistics and related
> disciplines. At the same time, I want to note that the radical nature
> of the script can sometimes be a social barrier to its adoption by
> signers (particularly because of the historical relationship between
> the Linguistic validation of sign languages with the social validation
> of Deaf signers).
> I'm wondering if any of you would be willing to share some of the ways
> you've heard people criticize or dismiss SSW (or point me to places
> where these opinions are aired). I'm looking for people's concerns
> about the script itself (i.e., "it looks like hieroglyphics") rather
> than the other common arguments about the need for a script at all
> (i.e., "Deaf people can just write in English").
> Thanks!
> Best,
> Erika
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> SW-L SignWriting List
>
> Post Message
> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> List Archives and Help
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>
> Change Email Settings
> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
> From: "Trevor Jenkins" <bslwannabe at gmail.com>
> To: "SignWriting List" <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
> Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:55:19 +0000
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
> Interesting topic. One criticism that I've heard about SignWriting
> (from sign language interpreters) is that it is too ideograhic! They
> prefer either Stokoe or HamNoSys notations! Yet if you show a Deaf
> people something transcribed in Stokoe or HamNoSys and the reaction is
> utter confusion. This is exacerbated beacuse the BSL fingerspelling
> alphabet (I'm in the UK) is two-handed and completely different from
> the one-handed ASL alphabet that is used to label handshapes in
> Stokoe.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Erika Hoffmann <erhoffma at oberlin.edu>
> wrote:
> > Hi! I mentioned the last time I posted that I'm working on a paper
> > about SignWriting for presentation at the American Anthropological
> > Association meeting in December.
> > One of the things I'm thinking about is the ways in which Signwriting
> > and Signwriten documents can be used to critique dominant ideologies
> > about language and writing that are common in Linguistics and related
> > disciplines. At the same time, I want to note that the radical nature
> > of the script can sometimes be a social barrier to its adoption by
> > signers (particularly because of the historical relationship between
> > the Linguistic validation of sign languages with the social validation
> > of Deaf signers).
> > I'm wondering if any of you would be willing to share some of the ways
> > you've heard people criticize or dismiss SSW (or point me to places
> > where these opinions are aired). I'm looking for people's concerns
> > about the script itself (i.e., "it looks like hieroglyphics") rather
> > than the other common arguments about the need for a script at all
> > (i.e., "Deaf people can just write in English").
> > Thanks!
> > Best,
> > Erika
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________
> >
> > SW-L SignWriting List
> >
> > Post Message
> > SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> >
> > List Archives and Help
> > http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
> >
> > Change Email Settings
> > http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards, Trevor.
>
> <>< Re: deemed!
>
>
>
> ---------- Mensagem encaminhada ----------
> From: "Steve Slevinski" <slevin at signpuddle.net>
> To: "SignWriting List" <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:19:34 -0600
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] common criticisms of signwriting?
> Hi Erika,
>
> There are rational criticisms of SignWriting.  Here are the top three as I
> see it.
>
>
> 1) Too much noise for too little signal.   Some say that SignWriting
> includes extraneous details that are not needed.  The extra details inflates
> the visual size of the script and interferes with reading and writing.  Some
> say that SignWriting does not record the meaningful streams of sign language
> directly, but that the meaningful parts are absent and must be inferred from
> the writing.
>
>
> 2) SignWriting is hard to write by hand and requires special software for
> computers.
>
>
> 3) SignWriting is too varied and has too much flexibility.  The number of
> potential signs is infinite.  There are too many potential spellings for the
> same sign.
>
> Most other criticisms are based on ignorance.
>
> Regards,
> -Steve
>
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> SW-L SignWriting List
>
> Post Message
> SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> List Archives and Help
> http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/
>
> Change Email Settings
> http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l
>
>

-- 
Fernando Capovilla, PhD, Livre Docente
Professor, Instituto de Psicologia, USP
Av. Prof. Melo de Morais 1721
São Paulo, SP, 05508-900
fcapovilla at gmail.com

Sic transit gloria mundi. Aude sapere.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20091106/5dc978ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------

____________________________________________

SW-L SignWriting List

Post Message
SW-L at majordomo.valenciacc.edu

List Archives and Help
http://www.signwriting.org/forums/swlist/

Change Email Settings
http://majordomo.valenciacc.edu/mailman/listinfo/sw-l