Glyphs, graphemes or symbols? ISWA terminology

[Erika Hoffmann-Dilloway]

In many disciplines, symbol refers to something which bears meaning by
means of social convention. So symbol is a blanket term that would apply to
all aspects of SW, and in that respect may be too broad for what you're
looking to do.
Best,
Erika


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:46 AM, maria galea <signwriting.maria at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yes - this is the problem the terms are used differently in different
> areas - Maybe Steve Slevinski could tell us what they use in the area of
> unicode...
>
> As for the field of writing systems/linguistics, I've just found this in
> Coulmas Enclyclopedia. there is no definition of 'symbol' so I am ruling
> that term out. The term glyph is defined as:
> "A term derived by contraction from HIEROGLYPH. It has sometimes been used
> in the description of writing sytems whose units were not well understood.
> For example, in Maya epigraphy, where teh phonetic component of the writing
> system has long been in doubt, it is used as a collective designation to
> indicate a logogram, a phonetic sign or a compound sign" (Coulmas, 1996, p.
> 168).
>
> The term 'grapheme' is provided as follows:
> "Coined on analogy with 'phoneme'this term deignates the unit of analysis
> in the study of written langauge understood as an abstract entity (...)
> Every analysis of a writing sytem tart out with compiling a complete list
> of the graphemes of that system on the basis of a set of data that comprise
> all of its GRAPHS, that is visually distinct formal elements. (...)"
> (Coulmas, 1996, p. 174)
>
> *SO* on the basis of this (and considering all the work i've done so
> far)... I will be calling the symbols of the ISWA 'glyphs' and the symbols
> used by a specific language (in this case maltese sign language)
> as..'graphemes' -
>
> Claudia -  it is a good justification for using the term 'glyph' - I have
> not consulted with the Deaf in malta about this choice of term. Might be a
> good idea to check this..
>
> Thank you Ingvild and Claudia!
> maria
>
>
> On 19 June 2013 13:30, Ingvild Roald <iroald at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this has been discussed before - several years ago.
>>
>> My thoughts:
>>
>> Graphemes and morphemes belong to the same 'category': that of small
>> units carrying meaning.
>>
>> Glyphs are the writable results of merging one or more graphemes, so that
>> the glyph for a certain handshape will also reveal a certain rotation
>> (placement of long axis of hand) and a certain fill (rotation along this
>> long axix).
>>
>> The symbol for the back of the hand is black (fill), for the palm it is
>> white (no fill), and so on.
>>
>> But maybe there are conventions for use of these words in connection with
>> Unicode, which would of course be more important than my private houghts ...
>>
>> Ingvild
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:09:11 +0200
>> From: signwriting.maria at GMAIL.COM
>> Subject: Glyphs, graphemes or symbols? ISWA terminology
>> To: SW-L at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>> I'm trying to figure out which term to stick to when referring to the
>> symbols of ISWA - any preferences and if so, why?
>> Thank you very much!
>> maria
>>
>
>


-- 
Erika Hoffmann-Dilloway
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Oberlin College
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20130619/d941b4d4/attachment.html>