The term Glyphes comes from Pennacchi 2008
Pennacchi B. 2008. Mettere nero su bianco la LIS. In: C. Bagnara, S.
Corazza, S. Fontana, A. Zuccalà (eds) "I Segni parlano: prospettive di
ricerca sulla Lingua dei Segni italiana". Franco Angeli, Milano:
She decide to use "glyphes" because it meaning is only marginally
related to terms connected to vocal languages.
Because for "symbol" you have a lot of meanings (link in Pierce's
theory of iconicity) that give aspectations about what is the value of
a unit in SW. The same is for "caractère" or other words connected to
By the way, if you use glyphs, you have to say that is not in a
informatical way that you use the term.
2012/9/15 MARIA GALEA <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi Claudia-
> yes your answer is very good and I will cite you about Detailed Location,
> since you have already analyzed it :) (i still have to February - so by
> then, I will hopefully have read your whole thesis and then I will add the
> exact citation and page number) - how exciting is your work!
> I am wondering whether to use the term 'symbol' or 'glyph' in my work -
> can you explain why you chose 'glyph' rather than 'symbol'. I think it's
> good that academics in a shared field use the same terminology, so if
> there is good reason for your choice of the term 'glyph' I think I may
> adopt it and say I adopted it from your work..
> > hi Maria,
> > do you mean symbols used to indicate the exact location of a hand or a
> > touch?
> > As I know, no one use them! The reason (as I say in my thesis) is that
> > they
> > seems "alien" in a SW figure... Imagine that you want to write a sign with
> > a detailed location symbols. You have to write your sign, and then add in
> > a
> > corner one of those "detailed location symbols": they don't have the same
> > aspect of other glyphs, they don't have the same size, so you can't use
> > them as a base to put others glyphes like configuration or mouvement...
> > they are like "a punch in a eye" (tipical italian expression) and they
> > broke the analogical relation between signing space and SW space.
> > By the way, on my point of view, they are also useless. Infact, SW have
> > the
> > caracteristic to have a perfect indication of the location that is not
> > "explicit" but is "implicit" (Garcia, from Univ.Paris8, call this
> > "emplacement en creux"), given by the relative location of the others
> > glyphes. When the implicit location is not enough, users put more
> > informations as he position of arms or shoulders.
> > I hope I gave you a satisfying (and understandable) answer
> > Claudia
> > 2012/9/15 MARIA GALEA <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Dear all,
> >> I'm searching for work, in the Dictionary Puddles, or elsewhere - where
> >> the researcher/writer has chosen to use detailed location symbols. Maybe
> >> in a printed dictionary or some sort?
> >> Would appreciate if you could direct me to some work that uses ISWA's
> >> Detailed Location symbols.
> >> Thank you! Wish you all a pleasant weekend.
> >> maria
> > --
> > Claudia S. Bianchini
> > PhD Student @ Univ. Paris8 + CNRS-UMR7023-SFL
> > PhD Student @ Univ. Studi di Perugia + CNR-ISTC-SLDS
> > [log in to unmask]
Claudia S. Bianchini
PhD Student @ Univ. Paris8 + CNRS-UMR7023-SFL
PhD Student @ Univ. Studi di Perugia + CNR-ISTC-SLDS
[log in to unmask]