SignWriting List Forum| Message 539 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Valerie Sutton Date: Wed Nov 4, 1998 3:29 am Subject: Re: Iconicity | |
|
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Ulrike Zeshan wrote: >But I am somehow convinced that fluent readers of sign writing will do the >same, i.e. they will process the whole sign at once without bothering >very much about the iconicity of the individual components. Maybe the >fluent sign writing readers among you can tell me. >Yours >Ulrike Zeshan >University of Cologne ____________________________________ November 3 1998 Hello Ulrike - Thank you for your very interesting message. I will be answering it in three parts. I notice you are at the University of Cologne, in Germany. I love the city of Cologne. I used to live in Denmark, and I have been to Cologne, Germany several times, two times working with DanceWriting back in 1972 and 1974, and one time I recorded the movements of physical therapy there. It has been a long time, and I want to go back to find my notes from that work...but anyway...you live in a lovely city. I love the Cathedral and the square nearby, and the Cologne Opera House where I have seen many an opera and dance performance. You are correct that we read signs as "units". I think that is what Michele Lewis was saying, when she reported that her children learned whole signs and sentences better than breaking them down. So there is no question about that...I think the question is how do we define the term "iconic"? I can see there are several interpretations of that word. I know one thing - SignWriting is learned quickly because the "units of symbols" represent a "complete picture" and your eye and brain grasp it all at once. We all know that SignWriting is visual. But the symbols of SignWriting have no meaning by themselves. They are just visual representations of parts of the body. Obviously, if you know a signed language already, then you can "attach" meaning to the movements written on the page, but the symbols themselves carry no meaning. The sign for "cook" in ASL could be called "iconic" because it shows the "image" of a person turning a hamburger over in a frying pan. The "symbol of cooking" is in the sign. Meanwhile, the sign "to translate language" in Danish Sign Language (DSL) is the exact same movement. It too is "iconic" because it is showing the "picture" of turning pages over and over, which represents the "changing of languages". That works in DSL because the sign for language itself is similar - it is hard to explain this in words...it becomes iconic once you know other signs in DSL. I wrote both those signs before I knew either DSL or ASL...I could not know their meaning because I knew no signed language at that time. I wrote them exactly the same, because they are the same. So as a neutral observer, the signs were not iconic to me, because I could not attach meaning to them. Later I found out that the same sign had two different meanings - one in DSL and one in ASL - and I found that fascinating! I have used that example in speeches to demonstrate the neutrality of the writing system, and how reading it becomes iconic, once you know the signed language being written. Valerie :-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Valerie Sutton at the DAC Deaf Action Committee for SW SignWriting https://www.SignWriting.org Center For Sutton Movement Writing an educational nonprofit organization Box 517, La Jolla, CA, 92038-0517, USA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|