Hi Erika,
sorry for the delay, thought i'd answer your questions

- "Did you initially write receptively? If so, how did you shift? (or do you still write receptively sometimes?)."
When transcribing sign language data I've always written expressively, not receptively.  All that has been written for Maltese sign language (all the texts in the Malta Literature Puddle and single-signs in the Malta Dictionary Puddle) is written expressively.


 - "How do you feel that writing productively affects the way you choose to write (or how you read other people's writing)?"
Since I know no other way, I find that writing productively is the only way to write and I find I can read fluently this way.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if I was given a piece of LSM receptively written text - i don't know whether I would be able to read it as fluently or not.  I have on occasion met single signs that have been written receptively (for other sign languages). Since they are signs in isolation (not running text) I was able to read them (or rather produce them) with relative ease.

I think that when transcribing natural data (using SignWriting for notations not writing), receptive writing may have its advantages. When teaching SignWriting, my students are asked to transcribe some data and they do sometimes 'accidentally' shift to receptive writing.  I think it might be more natural to transcribe natural data receptively, especially when it comes to the placement of signs in space. E.g. when the signer signs on the right, in video form it appears on the left (and vice-versa), and this may be a little confusing for the transcriber, or if not confusing, it is at least more time-consuming , since you need to engage in some mental activity of putting yourself in the signer's shoes before transcribing.

Interesting subject! Enjoy your work on it.
Maria




On 12 August 2013 21:39, Erika Hoffmann-Dilloway <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi everyone! I'm going to be giving a paper at our annual anthropology meetings this fall on a panel about how to best represent visual aspects of linguistic phenomena.
I want to talk about the shift from receptive to productive writing in SW. I'm going to suggest that there are interesting theoretical and methodological lessons in this shift for scholars who want to transcribe visual aspects of communication, even if they aren't using SW per se (though I also want to make more scholars in my field aware of how useful SW can be for this purpose).
To that end, I was wondering if list members might be willing to talk with me about their feelings about productive writing with SW. Did you initially write receptively? If so, how did you shift? (or do you still write receptively sometimes?). How do you feel that writing productively affects the way you choose to write (or how you read other people's writing)?
I'd love to hear answers to these questions and anything else you think is relevant about this aspect of SW, particularly as it relates to your own ways of using the writing system (for teaching, for research, for translation, for poetry, etc).
The conference isn't until November, but I wanted to get started on it now, before the semester kicks in!
Best,
Erika

--
Erika Hoffmann-Dilloway
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Oberlin College