machine translation and SignWriting

[Steve Slevinski]

Hi Maria,

Their object to SignWriting seems to be that people 1) computers can't 
animate it and 2) most people don't read it.

    /In terms of its suitability as a candidate for use in an [Example
    Base Machine Translation] system, SignWriting lacks the explicit
    linguistic detail necessary for the generation of signs using an
    avatar. /


This is false.  You can check out the VSign project from 2004:
http://vsigns.iti.gr:8080/VSigns/index.html

The 2-dimensional nature of SignWriting is easy for a human to 
understand, but difficult for a computer.  It is possible to animate 
simple sign using only the 2-dimensional layout of symbols.  For more 
complicated signs, it is possible to utilized the SignSpelling Sequence 
to order the action, position the symbols, and add extra information 
when needed.

    /Annotated corpora on the other hand have the potential to carry
    varying degrees of granularity of linguistic detail, therefore
    bypassing the need to translate using SignWriting and then deriving
    such details from the resulting SignWriting symbol.
    /

I'm not sure why they see SignWriting as an intermediate step.  The 
paper clearly states that documentation should be provided in a person's 
native language so that they can read it in their native language.  
Watching a video is not reading.  Handing out a piece of paper is not 
the same as requiring a computer terminal.

    /Another issue with SignWriting is that the majority of signers are
    unfamiliar with it which lowers its appeal for use as final output
    translation./

This may support the idea of including the animation in the beginning, 
but it does not negate the need for written material for people to read.

Regards,
-Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20120309/b9931618/attachment.htm>