Sign languages do not have a written form, but are based on face-to-face communication (Peters 2000). However, the non-existence of a form of writing recognised and shared by deaf communities does not mean that sign languages are not written at all. We could consider for example SignWriting, today widely used in research, but preceded and followed in history by various other systems (see Garcia & Sallandre 2013). Alongside these notation systems, which are in some way ‘official’ because they are formally codified, there are numerous other sign writing/notation systems, individual or shared by small groups, which were born spontaneously with the aim of preserving memory (one of the main functions of writing). Among these we could mention the signs used by French deaf actors to memorise choreographies (Schetrit 2016), but also the signed notation strategies used by hearing LIS students and aspiring LIS interpreters. These systems differ significantly from each other, just as their users differ, both with respect to their position in the deaf community (fully inside or at the boundaries), and with respect to linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. The present study proposes a comparative analysis of these systems: the results allow us to observe the potential of the graphic strategies, the proximity/distance compared to the vocal language in its written form, and the ‘readability’ of the systems.
Le lingue dei segni non hanno forma scritta, ma si basano su una comunicazione face-to-face (Peters 2000). L’assenza di una forma di scrittura riconosciuta e condivisa dalle comunità sorde non significa tuttavia che le lingue dei segni non si scrivano affatto. Pensiamo per esempio al SignWriting, ad oggi ampiamente utilizzato nella ricerca, preceduto e seguito nella storia da diversi altri sistemi (cfr. Garcia & Sallandre 2013). A tali sistemi di notazione, in qualche modo ‘ufficiali’ perché formalmente codificati, si affiancano numerosi altri sistemi di scrittura/notazione dei segni, individuali o condivisi da piccoli gruppi, che sono nati spontaneamente con lo scopo di serbare memoria (una delle principali funzioni della scrittura). Fra questi si potrebbero citare i segni utilizzati da attori sordi francesi per memorizzare le coreografie (Schetrit 2016), ma anche le strategie di notazione del segnato utilizzate da studenti udenti di LIS e aspiranti interpreti LIS (Roccaforte et al. 2019; Ardita & Caligiore 2024). Tali sistemi differiscono fra loro significativamente, così come i loro utenti differiscono, sia rispetto alla posizione nella comunità sorda (pienamente o solo parzialmente inseriti), sia rispetto alle consapevolezze linguistiche e metalinguistiche. Il presente studio propone un’analisi comparativa di tali sistemi: i risultati consentono di osservare la potenzialità delle strategie grafiche, la vicinanza/distanza rispetto alla lingua vocale nella sua forma scritta e la ‘leggibilità’ dei sistemi.
Sign language notation strategies. Spontaneous processes within and at the boundaries of the signing community
Raniolo ErikaPrimo
;Ardita GabriellaSecondo
;Caligiore GaiaUltimo
2025-01-01
Abstract
Sign languages do not have a written form, but are based on face-to-face communication (Peters 2000). However, the non-existence of a form of writing recognised and shared by deaf communities does not mean that sign languages are not written at all. We could consider for example SignWriting, today widely used in research, but preceded and followed in history by various other systems (see Garcia & Sallandre 2013). Alongside these notation systems, which are in some way ‘official’ because they are formally codified, there are numerous other sign writing/notation systems, individual or shared by small groups, which were born spontaneously with the aim of preserving memory (one of the main functions of writing). Among these we could mention the signs used by French deaf actors to memorise choreographies (Schetrit 2016), but also the signed notation strategies used by hearing LIS students and aspiring LIS interpreters. These systems differ significantly from each other, just as their users differ, both with respect to their position in the deaf community (fully inside or at the boundaries), and with respect to linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. The present study proposes a comparative analysis of these systems: the results allow us to observe the potential of the graphic strategies, the proximity/distance compared to the vocal language in its written form, and the ‘readability’ of the systems.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.