SignWriting List Forum| Message 5871 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Antonio Carlos da Rocha Costa Date: Fri Nov 9, 2001 12:09 am Subject: amounts of details | ||||||||||||||||
|
Steve Parkhurst wrote: > Stefan and I made the distinction between "informed" and "uninformed" > readers. Here in Spain we primarily teach Deaf adults who are native > signers. We assume that they know what they are signing and will > automatically fill in the appropriate facial expressions. Stefan is using SW > with children who do not necessarily know the SL. For us it is important to > be able to read fluently with speed. The fewer symbols you have, the faster > you can read. Of course there has to be a balance; if you leave out too > much, it's hard to understand the text; if you put in too many details, it > slows you down and you lose the flow and the context. Maybe this idea can be put in abstract terms: a notation system can be used either in an "analitical" way or in a "synthetic" way. When used in an analytical way, its aim is to be "descriptive", "detailed", that is, to make explicit every detail of the thing being described. When used in a synthetic way, its aim is to be "symbolic", "simplified", that is, to bring to the mind (as fast as possible) the thing being described. I think we all agree that SignWriting can be used in both ways. My questions (for those interested in abstract discussions :-) are the following: - which should be the preferred way of using SignWriting when it is used as a writing system, by common people, for their daily activities (taking notes, writing messages, etc.)? - if the answer is for the synthetic, simplified way of writing, should there be some official "orthography" for each sign language, as there are for the oral languages? - if there should be an official "orthography", should it arise naturally as a product of the deaf communities (as the sign languages evolved themselves), or should it be established by some organization? - if it should arise naturally, and the "correct" way to write some sign language will become clear only in the future, how can one decide now if someone has really been "alphabetized" in sign languages? Let me be more concrete, now... I ask those questions because I've noticed that the deaf people around me tend to be "idiossyncratic" in their way of writing. That is, the same signs are written in different ways by different people, the main difference being in the amount of the details. This has a consequence I've also noticed: usually, they feel insecure to read a text whenever the person that wrote the text is not at hand, to help solving doubts about what exactly was written. And the problems are usually about the "implicit" parts of the signs, not mistakes that can be easily recognized. There seems to be lacking a common background that would enable the reader to "fill in the blanks". Is that due to the fact that they are "new" to SignWriting? That they are very "few" and can't interact with others outside the hours they meet at the university? Or is that due to the preference for "simplified" writings that I may have induced in them :-) ? Does anyone working with larger groups noticed a different situation? Does anyone know of anybody using written sign languages outside the "formal" context in which (s)he has learnt (or is being taught) how to read and write? Does that person writes "detailed" or "simplified"? All the best, Antônio Carlos | ||||||||||||||||
|
|