Glyph vs Symbol

[Claudia S. Bianchini]

At my lab, we use glyph not for the whole sign, but just for a single
unit of the ISWA, evy sign is composed by one or more glyphes


2012/9/15 Charles Butler <chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com>:
> I think that glyph, used in sign-symbol-sequence conveys a clearer idea of
> the placement of the symbols than "symbol" alone. Coming from hieroglyphic
> people associate it with human based symbols, not simply symbols like "&"
> ampersand which convey a meaning in spoken language. If one downloads from
> the SignPuddle without naming the sign, the word "glyph" is used for the
> whole sign representation.
>
> It has been used in discussion for both the whole "sign" and the individual
> parts of it as "more than one kind of symbol" together. So one has
> handshapes, movement symbols, speed, prosody, but all of them together are
> glyphs.
>
> Charles Butler
> chazzer3332000 at yahoo.com
> 240-764-5748
> Clear writing moves business forward.
> ________________________________
> From: MARIA GALEA <maria.azzopardi at UM.EDU.MT>
> To: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 6:56 AM
> Subject: Re: ISWA (2010) Detailed Location symbols
>
> Hi Claudia-
> yes your answer is very good and I will cite you about Detailed Location,
> since you have already analyzed it :) (i still have to February - so by
> then, I will hopefully have read your whole thesis and then I will add the
> exact citation and page number) - how exciting is your work!
>
> I am wondering whether to use the term 'symbol' or 'glyph' in my work -
> can you explain why you chose 'glyph' rather than 'symbol'. I think it's
> good that academics in a shared field use the same terminology, so if
> there is good reason for your choice of the term 'glyph' I think I may
> adopt it and say I adopted it from your work..
>
> Thanks!!
> Maria
>
>
>
>> hi Maria,
>> do you mean symbols used to indicate the exact location of a hand or a
>> touch?
>> As I know, no one use them! The reason (as I say in my thesis) is that
>> they
>> seems "alien" in a SW figure... Imagine that you want to write a sign with
>> a detailed location symbols. You have to write your sign, and then add in
>> a
>> corner one of those "detailed location symbols": they don't have the same
>> aspect of other glyphs, they don't have the same size, so you can't use
>> them as a base to put others glyphes like configuration or mouvement...
>> they are like "a punch in a eye" (tipical italian expression) and they
>> broke the analogical relation between signing space and SW space.
>> By the way, on my point of view, they are also useless. Infact, SW have
>> the
>> caracteristic to have a perfect indication of the location that is not
>> "explicit" but is "implicit" (Garcia, from Univ.Paris8, call this
>> "emplacement en creux"), given by the relative location of the others
>> glyphes. When the implicit location is not enough, users put more
>> informations as he position of arms or shoulders.
>> I hope I gave you a satisfying (and understandable) answer
>> Claudia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/9/15 MARIA GALEA <maria.azzopardi at um.edu.mt>
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> I'm searching for work, in the Dictionary Puddles, or elsewhere - where
>>> the researcher/writer has chosen to use detailed location symbols. Maybe
>>> in a printed dictionary or some sort?
>>>
>>> Would appreciate if you could direct me to some work that uses ISWA's
>>> Detailed Location symbols.
>>>
>>> Thank you! Wish you all a pleasant weekend.
>>> maria
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claudia S. Bianchini
>> PhD Student @ Univ. Paris8 + CNRS-UMR7023-SFL
>> PhD Student @ Univ. Studi di Perugia + CNR-ISTC-SLDS
>> chiadu14 at tiscali.it
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Claudia S. Bianchini
PhD Student @ Univ. Paris8 + CNRS-UMR7023-SFL
PhD Student @ Univ. Studi di Perugia + CNR-ISTC-SLDS
chiadu14 at tiscali.it