Writing Sign Languages: Gloss Vs. Transcription

Transcript:

Now, how can we write sign languages? Most people typically follow the spoken language model, using the writing system of that spoken language. The words of the spoken language are overlaid onto the signs. For example, suppose we sign ("cat"), in English, the English word "cat" will be overlaid onto the sign. That's called a "gloss". Glossing can work for simple ideas like "cat", "dog", "eat", and so on. But glossing becomes more problematic when we try to express more abstract or complex ideas, as well as on the sentence level. For example, you know the old joke "please but". In it, the Deaf person is stuck trying to come up with a gloss for the sign meaning to "open the warning gate rails". So, as a make-do effort, he uses the English gloss "but" as a close approximation for the sign he wants to express. But of course, it makes no sense to the Hearing person reading it. As another example, how would you gloss these signs (_____) and (______)? I've struggled for a long time and cannot figure out a good translational equivalent for those signs. That's a big problem with glossing. Sometimes you just can't translate directly from signs to a spoken language. Linguists don't like glosses, either. They have problems with them in that they're not clear, they don't show what the sign looks like, and more.

So linguists have several different ways to record signs. These are called transcription or notation systems. These systems are often complex and are more for linguistic purposes in analyzing signs -- their movements, handshapes, and other parts of the signs.

One famous example is Stokoe Notation. His system borrows many of the English letters plus some symbols that he invented. His system takes a more phonological analysis of the signs -- the handshapes, movements, locations. (see graphic).

Other researchers have their own system like Liddell and Johnson, two linguists at Gallaudet who invented their own system, which is complex. I don't fully understand or like their system, (see graphic), but it works for them. But it is clearly for linguistic purposes.

Others, in Germany, have the Hamburg Notation System, called HamNoSys for short, and it is a different system. (see graphic).

But it is important to understand that these systems are all for the purposes of linguistic research, and not for everyday use for people to use in correspondence, etc., because they are too complex for common use.

But can signs have a written representation? Yes, they can, and I believe they should. Robert Arnold has explained about his "Si5S" writing system, and explained his reasons for developing it, and I support his reasons. I would add to those reasons also, is a written system could help ASL students learn ASL through writing, not just signs, and be able to analyze the grammar, and so forth that way, WITHOUT glosses. I believe strongly that Hearing people, when they see glosses, they think in English, and associate signs with English, or it makes them think ASL is "lousy English". But it's not. They need to be disassociated, since they are different languages.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Writing-GlossVTranscripti

[TheSterlingJOe]

Not only hearing people will benefit this as an ASL student. Deaf people will improve their ASL usage since we don't quite have a formal ASL class like hearing do in grade school for English.

[DrDonGCSUS]

@TheSterlingJOe AGREE!

[Salticid68]

Wm. Stokoe had inner voice as he was hearie, so he used a lot of phonological analysis that worked best for him. It doesn't work best for some of us. Remember hearies who control us didn't work best for us as shown in long history. Let Deaf ppl, like Robert Arnold, work on their system until it's perfect. It takes time. I'm sure once it is shown to us, we won't understand. It takes learning for us to understand or know them. 

[DrDonGCSUS]

@Salticid68 phonological analysis of sign does not have anything to do with hearing. Deaf can analyze signs phonologically -- just because the word comes from phon- meaning sound, does not mean it has to be sound-related. For slgn language linguistics, it just means the smallest unit of a sign (handshape, orientation, location, facial expression) that makes a difference in meaning. What is the difference between SHORT and TRAIN and NAME? THAT.

[Salticid68]

@DrDonGCSUS I said some. Yes, we can analyze signs phonologically. That's because we know English written language, a phoneme. It would be nice to have ASL written language. I believe once we have that into everyday use, Deaf ppl of the next generation can analyze anything morphologically and ASL will be evolved to more morpheme. I think not all Deaf ppl can analyze signs phonologically, though.

[DrDonGCSUS]

@Salticid68 Well, maybe you're right, that if not trained, people are unable to analyze phonologically. In my vision, sign writing will be standard for each sign so that the need to make that phonological analysis will be unnecessary. Just like Hearing people can read English, but not know or understand about the phonological underpinnings of what they are reading.

[Salticid68]

@DrDonGCSUS I like and agree with your vision. We can be trained to analyze morphologically. I believe it's a spatial exercise something people in general need. It took generations to make English to be almost perfect. We can give ASL writing system a chance. I know we'll love it. It seems so fun.

[Salticid68]

We can't understand written languages. We understand them by memorizing for yrs. 'A' doesn't make sense, b/c the sound of a has nothing to do with how 'a' looks, but it works once we memorize it. Morpheme like Chinese written language works. ASL writing system can be adjusted until it's perfect b4 we put it into use. We use both right and left hemispheres of brains when we use ASL. I believe ASL writing system will increase hearies' low spatial skills. It'll may help to end our sufferings.