What about signwriting?

rockdrummer said:
Thanks Tousi. What about if you only knew SEE and you were in a room with another deafie that only knows SEE. You both also are proficient in written english but neither knows ASL. Would you prefer to communicate in by signing in SEE or would you rather write notes back and forth in english?
Click to expand...

If 2 deafies are in a room conversing and both know SEE, why would there be need to write notes back and forth? They share a communication mode.. They would converse in the shared mode.
 
Ok, everyone knows my history, so i won't rehash it.

I agree SEE is cumbersome for most. But if it's the only signing that a deaf person knows, and can use to communicate, then honestly, let them use it to communicate. Eventually they will conform to a PSE if their arms felt the way mine did after daily communication in SEE.

Sign writing could help children learn sign language, but personally, I see problems with it because you have to learn the various symbols that show how to sign the words. So someone learning sign writing would have to study the style of the writing, and convert it into signs. And I don't know many people who would have the patience to do that.
 
jillio said:
If we are talking about literacy, then written English is the standard for literacy. I know of no deafies who use SEE on a conversational basis. Even those who have come tosigning late, and are weak on ASL grammar and syntax,will use a more PSE system of signing. SEE is simply too cumbersome for conversational purposes.

And sign writing doesn't use SEE (English) syntax. It uses ASL syntax.
Click to expand...
Actually I was responding to your quote that said
jillio said:
We have all the modes we need. Inventing other modes to accomplish what can be accomplished by a language in its natural form is a complete waste of time and effort. It is reinventing the wheel
Click to expand...
If what I hear is true then some of the kids in the mainstream schools may be only learning SEE. I presented that scenereo on the assumption that they may end up using SEE in conversations. I understand it's a cumbersome means of personal communication. If that's not a realistic situation then so be it. I don't recall ever saying that sign writing used SEE syntax. I believe it's a good representation of ASL syntax and grammer in written form. Think about two deafies that only know ASL but don't have means of communicating other than writing letters. Do you think they would like to use this system? Also imagine if you could incorporate this into a font and perhaps be able to construct scentences as easily as typing. Then ASL'ers could even use this on-line. I agree it would have to be easy though. My opinion for what it's worth is that there could be a place for this sort of thing. I don't agree that it's a waste of time.
 
BearBeauty said:
Ok, everyone knows my history, so i won't rehash it.

I agree SEE is cumbersome for most. But if it's the only signing that a deaf person knows, and can use to communicate, then honestly, let them use it to communicate. Eventually they will conform to a PSE if their arms felt the way mine did after daily communication in SEE.

Sign writing could help children learn sign language, but personally, I see problems with it because you have to learn the various symbols that show how to sign the words. So someone learning sign writing would have to study the style of the writing, and convert it into signs. And I don't know many people who would have the patience to do that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, BearBeauty. I didn't mean to imply that those users of SEE should not use it. Just that if two fluent users of SEE are having a conversation, they would do so in SEE, not in writing. Written language would be a method chosen if perhaps there was a SEE signer, and an oral deaf who had no sign skills having a conversation. And that even someone who is skilled in SEE, will in conversational situations,switch to a more PSE form, just as someone who is fluent in spoken English will simplify grammar structure and use slang terms in conversation.
 
jillio said:
If we are talking about literacy, then written English is the standard for literacy. I know of no deafies who use SEE on a conversational basis. Even those who have come tosigning late, and are weak on ASL grammar and syntax,will use a more PSE system of signing. SEE is simply too cumbersome for conversational purposes.

And sign writing doesn't use SEE (English) syntax. It uses ASL syntax.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I think SEE is just too awkward. All those ings and is and prefixes and suffixes in sign... oh me! It's just too awkward. I will be first to admit that when I sign it's clear to other deaf that ASL isn't my first language. I sign with a rather strong "accent" for want of a better word. The hearing think I mean i sign with a British accent when I say that. Oh no, that's not what I mean at all.
 
deafskeptic said:
Oh, I agree. I think SEE is just too awkward. All those ings and is and prefixes and suffixes in sign... oh me! It's just too awkward. I will be first to admit that when I sign it's clear to other deaf that ASL isn't my first language. I sign with a rather strong "accent" for want of a better word. The hearing think I mean i sign with a British accent when I say that. Oh no, that's not what I mean at all.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean....the influence of your first langauge on your ASL syntax. I've been working on my ASL syntax for 20 years, and there are still times that I get corrected by a native signer!
 
jillio said:
I know exactly what you mean....the influence of your first langauge on your ASL syntax. I've been working on my ASL syntax for 20 years, and there are still times that I get corrected by a native signer!
Click to expand...

same here..grrrrr! U have been using ASL a lot longer than me. :giggle:
 
Usually when a see a hearing person or a Deaf deffending (like myself) sing languages (SL) they mix oral language and written language.
Therefore, written english or even written spanish or whatever other local oral language, will never be "Deaf Culture".

I'm thinking for weeks now, how important is to have a writting system.
Do SL needs a writting system?
I can see a proposed system like "signwriting" controversial, but maybe because a symbols-based system is related to not evolved or extint languages (you can check in wiki about "writting" and how is displayed the concept of "evolution/progress" regarding logographies...) but what about assian languages?

Why am i worried about the SL and a writting system?
Deaf culture is relying on the local hearing written system (in case of america and others, english) but those arent signed languages' systems.
Only thing Deaf Culture is relying for passing the culture and values is in friends and family.

Im getting tired of reading everywhere about what's going on with young deaf "not knowing about the Deaf culture" or "knowing just a few" or things like "only older Deafs are keeping the culture safe" "hearings are mixing oral traditions with signing traditions"

I say the deaf comunity NEEDS a writting, graphic support to rely their foundations on.
Im not an expert, so im not sure about the comsecuences... but, can a language last if its not written? can a civilization endure without books... or movies... or ways of expressing arts and cience?

Human ciivilazation rely on documentation. W/out documentation, we wouldnt had know about most things.

Most of you have seen Ryan Comerson's doc regarding "ideology".
The deaf culture needs to start to make movies, to write books, to create poetry. Im not saying about some known deaf that's an artist.
I mean, i know there are deaf making those things... but, we need more.

Do i make any sense? am I overreacting by being "worried"?
Does the Deaf Comunity need a written system?

Looking forward to your opinions of agreement/disagreement...
 
ASLGAL said:
he is starting Tranliteration tonight and guess what was on the book
list? thats right - Signing Exact English - wow!
Click to expand...
That's what transliteration is: going from one form or mode of a language to a different mode. English to Signed Exact English is transliteration. English to ASL is interpretation.
 
In college I developed my own type of signwriting that I used for taking notes. For example, in one biology class we compared the metabolic systems of a bunch of different organisms, so the word "similar" came up alot. I began writing \m/ instead of similar.
\m/ was a quick approximation of the sign for similar. I also had written signs for "and" and "need" and a few other things.

I saw the signwriting site shortly after I began my shorthand notetaking. It makes sense and could be really useful, especially for people studying the linguistics of ASL.
 
I think sign language doesn't translate very well to written form because it has many more simultaneous articulations than spoken language. Since spoken language is more or less linear, it's easier to encode in a written system. It seems like a great idea but I think it would be impractical to teach and learn cause it would have to be pretty complex to include everything on the hands, face, and in space.
 
jillio said:
Signwriting, in the same way is redundant. ASL is already a visable language. It does not need another mode to make it visable.
Click to expand...

There is a distinction between written and "spoken" (loose definition of "spoken" here) though. Something that is written down can be put in a book and preserved or referred to later. It's true we have video technology now to record and preserve things said in ASL, but it could be argued that sign writing would be useful in countries where not everyone has access to a camera or other video technology.

At the same time, most of the world's languages don't have a writing system or borrow the writing system of another language, and they make do just fine. ASL is just another one of those languages.
 
it seems to me that with ASL being so visual-contextual, including all participants body language, if you write it down, doesn't it lose that? If someone's eyebrows form question, where does that end up on paper?
 
i'd just like to mention that i was raised with SEE and mouthing every word i sign. i used SEE until i took an ASL class in my freshman year of high school. it was very awkward for me at the beginning, and i'd get points off when i slipped back into SEE.. yikes! i only used ASL in those classes. my signing style eventually transformed into PSE. native ASL signers can understand me, and i can understand them.. so it's not really a problem for me. i do request that my interpreters sign in english order (it doesn't have to be SEE.. PSE is fine), though. :P
 
dogmom said:
it seems to me that with ASL being so visual-contextual, including all participants body language, if you write it down, doesn't it lose that? If someone's eyebrows form question, where does that end up on paper?
Click to expand...

That's a perfect example of what I meant when I said "simultaneous articulations."
 
dogmom said:
it seems to me that with ASL being so visual-contextual, including all participants body language, if you write it down, doesn't it lose that? If someone's eyebrows form question, where does that end up on paper?
Click to expand...
If I am understanding you correct.y, that is all addressed. Check the earlier posts where I have provided links that show examples.
 
Back
Top