Subject: [Ltru] signed languages & filtering

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:08:33 +0100

Addison Philips, commented the Peter Constable position as follows.

This obvsiously rises filtering issues because this means that some 
spoken languages, which may be written should not be confused with 
non spoken languages which may not be written.

We also have an opposition between the reported 
independance/dependace from spoken languages.

May I suggest that we address this point in having a clear indication 
that the current draft does not address the sign mode at this stage?

jfc

>I think that it is inappropriate for sign languages to be forced to use the
>"sgn-XXX" extlang form for language tags now or in the future. (Note: this
>is not the same as the "sgn-XX" form previously registered. I am talking
>about using extended language subtags, not region subtags)
>
>In reading about sign languages (and conversations with various linguists
>over the years) I see that the speaker community is always careful to state
>that sign languages are fully capable, independent languages with their own
>grammar and syntax and which are unrelated to the language used by the
>surrounding "hearing" community. Furthermore they usually go on to state
>that different sign languages are separate and not mutually intelligible.
>The frequency and vociferousness of these statements suggests that we avoid
>creating just those artificial relationships (either to a spoken language or
>to each other) in language tags.
>
>There is no reason why ISO 639-3 IDs such as "ase" could not be made
>full-fledged language subtags and no reason why sign languages need the
>macro-language subtag "sgn" that indicates a (false) inter-relationship
>between these languages. Variant registrations (for pidgins, for example)
>should be considered in their own time and on their own merits... and, IMO,
>should be based on some actual need or application that better enables this
>list to evaluate the request and its ramifications.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Addison

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:20:17 -0800

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:08 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] signed languages & filtering
...
> that the current draft does not address the sign mode at this stage?
...

I think it would be more correct to state that there is no demonstrated
need for the matching draft to do anything special with regard to gestural
languages.   Until a consensus emerges (e.g., in 3066ter) on how to
compose these tags, its premature to try to build any special support
for them into matching. Looking into the future, at least some of the proposals
(see below for an example)  would work nicely with the current algorithms.

Randy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status:  U
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 23:22:12 -0800
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF Languages Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Cc: 
Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed"
Sender: [email-masked]

I had an hour conversation today with an SIL linguist that has been =
assisting teams working on sign language projects for a number of years. =
We discussed various things, including the phenomenon of =
"signed-spoken-lang-X" varieties.

In thinking about how to construct tags for these languages, the crucial =
question in my mind is this (using "signed English" in the US as an =
example):=20

Is signed English=20

1) basically English expressed in a different modality,
2) basically ASL with some kind of modification or qualification -- e.g. =
a dialect or register, or
3) a pidgin of English and ASL?

Whichever it is, we should tag it accordingly (and if three, then =
possibly code as though it were a distinct language).

I was thinking we might use a subtag "-signed" based on the assumption =
that (1) was applicable. I know understand that these language varieties =
typically fall into (2), though perhaps sometimes into (3); generally =
these are probably best thought of as registers of the relevant signed =
language. They typically use phonology and lexica from the sign language =
and impose elements of the syntax (possibly including morphology) of the =
spoken language.

Thus, here's my thoughts on a good approach to tagging signed languages:

- We treat "sgn" as though it were a macrolanguage. (My contact said =
that really wasn't that much of a stretch.)

- We use ISO 639-3 IDs as extlang subtags together with a primary subtag =
of "sgn"; e.g., "sgn-ase" for ASL. All signed languages (SLs proper, not =
the Signed English cases) use tags constructed this way.

- We generally treat varieties like Signed English as registers of the =
signed language they are associated with. Thus, the tag is formed by =
adding a variant subtag to the tag for the sign language. Because there =
can be multiple varieties for a given sign language/spoken language =
combination, registered variant subtags provide the necessary level of =
flexibility. E.g. something like "sgn-ase-enexact" "sng-ase-enexact2" =
for SEE and SEE2; and "sgn-ase-esbaja" for the signed Spanish spoken in =
southern Baja California (which is based on ASL).

- For cases of signed-spoken-lang-X that are pidgins, we treat these =
based on whatever general principles we adopt for pidgins. (I'm not sure =
at the moment what that should be; the problem with pidgins is that they =
are transitional and not yet stable -- they may stabilize as a creole or =
they may continue to mutate or they may disappear.)

This should give generally good results for matching algorithms. Having =
"sgn" at the start immediately sets apart the modality, which will =
generally trump any other distinction in importance to the user. A =
request for "sgn-ase" will return results that include (the =
hypothetical) "sgn-ase-enexact" and "sgn-ase-esbaja", which is likely to =
be reasonable: an ASL speaker is going to recognize all or nearly all of =
the lexical items in either case and so will have about as much problem =
in comprehension as we'd expect from dialect or register differences.

This is a preliminary take. I'm know my understanding is still limited, =
and that are likely to be several parts of what I've outlined that need =
work and further discussion.

Peter Constable
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages