Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/2015 09:08, wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:12:10 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

There are 125,000 deaf adults in the UK who use BSL plus an estimated 20,000 children. In 2011, 15,000 people, living in England and Wales, reported themselves using BSL as their *main* language (wikipedia, my emphasis)

BSL is the first or preferred language of an estimated 70,000 Deaf people in the UK. (signature.org.uk)

Owain




and imagine how many of that small number will be watching the tv show
in question at any time - a negligible quantity.
it's pc and costs tv channels money - even music channels have to do it
bizarrely if they have a high enough viewership.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Fri, 29 May 2015 16:56:46 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/2015 13:14, David Woolley wrote:
On 29/05/15 11:59, NY wrote:
I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather
than being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal
sounds?

Sign languages for the deaf have different grammars from the spoken and
written languages in the same country.

British sign language is not English turned into signs.

Ah, I didn't know that, nor that BSL and English have different grammars
from written/spoken English.

The fact that they are a different grammar, maybe capable of being
simplified to allow the same speed of communication even though signing is
(presumably) slower that speaking, suggests that it may not be possible to
reconstruct from the signing the same words that are in the subtitles (and
are spoken in the dialogue/commentary) - they may not all be saying exactly
the same thing in different ways.

I wonder why British and American sign language have evolved to be so
different and not mutually comprehensible with just a few regional
differences as for spoken English around the world.

Because they are not word for word "translations" of the spoken
language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_la...oken_languages

A common misconception is that sign languages are somehow dependent
on spoken languages: that they are spoken language expressed in
signs, or that they were invented by hearing people. Hearing
teachers in deaf schools, such as Charles-Michel de l'Épée or Thomas
Hopkins Gallaudet, are often incorrectly referred to as “inventors”
of sign language. Instead, sign languages, like all natural
languages, are developed by the people who use them, in this case,
Deaf people, who may have little or no knowledge of any spoken
language.
....
... sign languages are independent of spoken languages and follow
their own paths of development. For example, British Sign Language
and American Sign Language (ASL) are quite different and mutually
unintelligible, even though the hearing people of Britain and
America share the same spoken language. The grammars of sign
languages do not usually resemble that of spoken languages used in
the same geographical area; in fact, in terms of syntax, ASL shares
more with spoken Japanese than it does with English

Do other
English-speaking countries have their own sign languages or do they all use
either British or American sign language. What about other languages which
are spoken in different countries (eg French in France, Canada, African
countries etc) - do they all use the same sign language. Indeed is there
even a different sign language for non-English countries or do various
countries with different spoken/written languages (France, Germany, Italy,
Spain etc) have a common mutually understandable sign language. Forgive my
total ignorance on the subject - I've never thought of it until now because
I thought that ASL and BSL were effectively signed forms of English and were
reasonably similar to each other.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 11:12:10 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
So does anyone know why broadcasters still
persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the
subtitles?

There are 125,000 deaf adults in the UK who use BSL plus an estimated
20,000 children. In 2011, 15,000 people, living in England and Wales,
reported themselves using BSL as their *main* language (wikipedia, my
emphasis)

BSL is the first or preferred language of an estimated 70,000 Deaf people
in the UK. (signature.org.uk)

But surely they need to know English in order to communicate in writing
(letters, emails, reading web pages etc).

I'm surprised that BSL is classed as a language in it own right rather
than being regarded as English "spoken" using signs rather than vocal
sounds?

Is there a higher proportion of deaf people who can *only* communicate by
BSL (and not by written English) than the proportion of illiterate people
in the general population?

why is the comparison relevant?

illiterate hearing people have the alternative of listening to the sound.
illiterate deaf people do not

tim

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:
why is the comparison relevant?

illiterate hearing people have the alternative of listening to the
sound. illiterate deaf people do not

The question is how many illiterate deaf people are there.

Suppose there are none watching; is the service still a good way to
spend the money?

Andy

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 29/05/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:
why is the comparison relevant?

illiterate hearing people have the alternative of listening to the
sound. illiterate deaf people do not

The question is how many illiterate deaf people are there.

Oh I accept that part of the question

I was just querying why the relationship to the percentage of illiterate
hearing people was the slightest bit relevant

tim

Sign language vs subtitles
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
I wonder why British and American sign language have evolved to be so
different and not mutually comprehensible with just a few regional
differences as for spoken English around the world.

Because they are not word for word "translations" of the spoken
language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_la...oken_languages

A common misconception is that sign languages are somehow dependent
on spoken languages: that they are spoken language expressed in
signs, or that they were invented by hearing people. Hearing
teachers in deaf schools, such as Charles-Michel de l'Épée or Thomas
Hopkins Gallaudet, are often incorrectly referred to as “inventors”
of sign language. Instead, sign languages, like all natural
languages, are developed by the people who use them, in this case,
Deaf people, who may have little or no knowledge of any spoken
language.

I'm gobsmacked by that last sentence. I'd have expected every deaf person to
learn a "spoken" language (except in their case it would be only a written
language). How else would they be able to communicate in writing. If a deaf
person knows sign language only, they can only converse face-to-face with
other deaf people (*), and cannot communicate with hearing people (*) or
with other deaf people at a distance (for which writing English in an email
or a letter would be needed).

I suppose if sign languages are not related to the written/spoken language
in a given country, deaf people throughout the whole world could (in theory)
learn a single sign language as well as the written language of their one
country.

I did once have to do some work for a client who was deaf, and he needed a
hearing interpreter to sign for him because he wasn't able to read or write
English - presumably one of those "deaf people, who may have little or no
knowledge of any spoken language". It was very difficult because the
interpreter wasn't familiar with computing vocabulary and wasn't able to
translate some of the technical terms either in my question or in the
client's answers - that afternoon was a frustrating ordeal for all of us
:-( If only I'd been able to write down my questions and see client's
written answers where the interpreter was out of his depth.


(*) Apart from the small number of hearing people who learn sign language,
usually to become signers or to communicate with a deaf relative/friend.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/2015 22:06, NY wrote:

I'm gobsmacked by that last sentence. I'd have expected every deaf person to
learn a "spoken" language (except in their case it would be only a written
language). How else would they be able to communicate in writing. If a deaf
person knows sign language only, they can only converse face-to-face with
other deaf people (*), and cannot communicate with hearing people (*) or with
other deaf people at a distance (for which writing English in an email or a
letter would be needed).

I'm gobsmacked that you're gobsmacked.

How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a deaf person?


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 29/05/2015 21:49, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 29/05/2015 19:53, tim..... wrote:
why is the comparison relevant?

illiterate hearing people have the alternative of listening to the
sound. illiterate deaf people do not

The question is how many illiterate deaf people are there.

Does it matter? Are they illiterate because they don't know English? Or simply
because you don't know BSL?


Suppose there are none watching; is the service still a good way to spend the
money?

Perhaps more money should be spent, then part of the budget could be used to
educate people not to be entirely selfish.


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On Fri, 29 May 2015 23:41:20 +0100
David Kennedy wrote:

On 29/05/2015 22:06, NY wrote:

I'm gobsmacked by that last sentence. I'd have expected every deaf
person to learn a "spoken" language (except in their case it would
be only a written language). How else would they be able to
communicate in writing. If a deaf person knows sign language only,
they can only converse face-to-face with other deaf people (*), and
cannot communicate with hearing people (*) or with other deaf
people at a distance (for which writing English in an email or a
letter would be needed).

I'm gobsmacked that you're gobsmacked.

How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a
deaf person?



Change 'spoken' to 'written' and it's not such a problem, surely?

I knew, in the US, the son of totally deaf parents. He had no such
problem himself. Both parents could read English, his dad was a
vice-president at GM. When we were all together, Bob would relay most
of the flowing conversation to his parents using 'C', whatever that is,
but he said it was a pretty good 'copy' of what was being said. He
didn't have much time for ASL.

When his dad died, we went to his funeral, which was mostly attended by
the successful, and rich, deaf community of Michigan. During the
service, which was translated by a signing pastor, there were signed
conversations going on all around. It was surreal, like watching a film
of a crowd scene with no sound.

--
Davey.

Sign language vs subtitles
 

On 30/05/2015 00:06, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2015 23:41:20 +0100
David Kennedy wrote:

On 29/05/2015 22:06, NY wrote:

I'm gobsmacked by that last sentence. I'd have expected every deaf
person to learn a "spoken" language (except in their case it would
be only a written language). How else would they be able to
communicate in writing. If a deaf person knows sign language only,
they can only converse face-to-face with other deaf people (*), and
cannot communicate with hearing people (*) or with other deaf
people at a distance (for which writing English in an email or a
letter would be needed).

I'm gobsmacked that you're gobsmacked.

How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a
deaf person?



Change 'spoken' to 'written' and it's not such a problem, surely?

I knew, in the US, the son of totally deaf parents. He had no such
problem himself. Both parents could read English, his dad was a
vice-president at GM. When we were all together, Bob would relay most
of the flowing conversation to his parents using 'C', whatever that is,
but he said it was a pretty good 'copy' of what was being said. He
didn't have much time for ASL.

Vice President of GM...

So, a bit strapped for cash then and unable to afford the best teachers...

When his dad died, we went to his funeral, which was mostly attended by
the successful, and rich, deaf community of Michigan. During the
service, which was translated by a signing pastor, there were signed
conversations going on all around. It was surreal, like watching a film
of a crowd scene with no sound.

Have you ever had dealings with Social Services here in the UK?

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com