SignWriting List Forum| Message 3663 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Valerie Sutton Date: Tue Jun 27, 2000 4:08 pm Subject: Re: Lessons In Sign Language Transcription | |||||
|
June 27, 2000 Hello Everyone, and Joe, Stefan, Wayne and Mark! Regarding the first sign on the video (see attachment below).... In a previous message, Joe wrote : >> 1st sign: >> I guess it's just me, but I looked and looked and looked at this--it >> looked like he touched his jaw with his index finger. I couldn't decide >> whether to write it that way, or with the second contact on the shoulder, >> or non second contact at all. Did anyone else have that problem? >> I liked Stephan's change of orientation, which seems to capture the >> movement quite well. Mark's was *very clear--but I agree, maybe better >> not to shift perspectives unless we have to. Then Stefan Woehrmann wrote: >This is the typical "critical" decision we have to make - as long as I donīt >know the other language - I donīt know wether a specific sign changes its >meaning in case I change the orientation of the hand - >So I felt more confident with this. It didnīt came to my mind until now that >the first part of my "L -Hand sign " is written from the front -perspective >while the end is top-down ? My pupils accept this without hesitation. >Would it be better to write both parts of this sign from top - down ? Excellent analysis, Joe and Stefan! And you all did an excellent job in writing the different aspects of the sign. So now I will add my comments too ;-) I agree that it is best not to mix viewpoints within one sentence, if possible. There will always be exceptions, where mixing viewpoints is necessary ...but in general I would suggest not mixing viewpoints if possible. So, yes, Stefan, I think your students are accepting it because they are not really reading the space for the hand parallel with the floor. I can see that you wrote the second hand position pointing towards the wall, parallel with the floor. I hadn't seen that palm facing, but perhaps I am wrong and I will look at the videotape again. In regards to Mark's overhead view of the head and shoulders...that symbol was invented because we were having problems showing depth. For example, the overhead view gave us an opportunity to record how close, or how far the hands are from the body. It helped in accuracy with verb conjugations, for example. But in this case, although an interesting choice, it is best to view the writing from the front consistently I believe. Isn't it interesting that Wayne and Joe wrote the sign exactly the same? That is great! Stefan added a Facial Circle without any facial expression. That is very interesting too, because that is what they are doing in Denmark now. Perhaps it is because you are teaching Deaf children, Stefan? I bet your students like to see a stick figure....it is easier for children, I believe. Which now comes to my writing - In the old days, I would have written the sign exactly as Joe and Wayne did. Just the handshape, contact and shoulder line. I would not have noticed the facial expression because it isn't exaggerated...and like most people, back in 1974, I figured the handshapes were more important than the facial expressions. But not today. I start writing all signs now with the Facial Circle. I establish that as the center of the sign. I decided the signer started the sentence with a topic marker - the eyebrows up. Then I looked at the hands to see how they were relating to the face. I realized he was mouthing a word, but I chose to ignore the word-mouthing. It could be written by the way, but I chose not to, for now. So by placing the hands and movement symbols under the Facial Circle, I did not need a Shoulder Line. When the Facial Circle is the center of each sign, location does not have to be marked by the Shoulder Line. Instead, the Facial Circle becomes the location marker: | |||||
| |||||
|
