|
|
Sign language vs subtitles
I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night
repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to this if it helps them. But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the subtitles? -- Clive Page |
Sign language vs subtitles
Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning most
annoying. Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub titles. Regards David |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100
Martin wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David" wrote: Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning most annoying. Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub titles. Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes? I was going to make that comment in reply to the " and would get more information that way " statement. I doubt that the signers make the same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do! -- Davey. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:26:07 +0100
Martin wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:20:49 +0100, Davey wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100 Martin wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David" wrote: Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning most annoying. Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub titles. Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes? I was going to make that comment in reply to the " and would get more information that way " statement. I doubt that the signers make the same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do! I the signers aren't using the subtitles for input :-) A modern version of Chinese Whispers. Or is that suggestion offensive to our Chinese friends? -- Davey. |
Sign language vs subtitles
No Martin because as what was said the sub titles can be turned on and off and here they are off. The point is let us choose to have the signers on and off and return to full picture when off. I do not want those who need the signing to do without. Regards David |
Sign language vs subtitles
On 27/05/2015 11:12, Clive Page wrote:
I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to this if it helps them. But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the subtitles? It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Sign language vs subtitles
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote:
It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero. -- Clive Page |
Sign language vs subtitles
Not really, but maybe its just that they do have to.
Brian -- From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active "Clive Page" wrote in message ... I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to this if it helps them. But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the subtitles? -- Clive Page |
Sign language vs subtitles
"Davey" wrote in message
... On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100 Martin wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:34:44 +0100, "David" wrote: Yes I find it terrible so I do not watch BBC News 24 in a morning most annoying. Of course those who need the signing will appreciate it, but surely with todays technology the signing could be selectable as with sub titles. Have you read the subtitles on BBC News programmes? I was going to make that comment in reply to the "and would get more information that way" statement. I doubt that the signers make the same mis-interpretations as the subtitlers do! I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b) that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said. If someone were to transcribe the signing back into English (assuming that this did not have to be done in real time), how much of the original wording would be preserved and how much of the subtlety is lost? I wish when signing was broadcast, they would make sure the signer's body/arms were entirely kept in the black border of the shrunken picture and never impinged on it. I actually find the hand-signs less distracting that the facial gurning which accompanies some of them and which is presumably a crucial add-on to the hand signals. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote: It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero. It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2 as well IIRC -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Sign language vs subtitles
On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote:
On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote: It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero. And, perhaps it just caters to their own staff... -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Sign language vs subtitles
In message , David
Kennedy writes On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote: On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote: It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero. It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2 as well IIRC I've also seen it on late-night films on ITV channels. I find it very distracting at first, though eventually I manage to mostly filter it out. -- I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony. (Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post) |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:18:30 +0100, "NY" wrote:
"Davey" wrote in message ... On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:58:37 +0100 I actually find the hand-signs less distracting that the facial gurning which accompanies some of them and which is presumably a crucial add-on to the hand signals. I came across an early morning signed programme, and the gurning was so funny I had to watch. Can't remember what the programme was about though. -- Dave W |
Sign language vs subtitles
"Martin" wrote in message
... I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b) that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said. If only they were. In my experience, subtitles of pre-recorded programmes on all channels seem to be pretty good. There's the occasional howler which could be due to the subtitler without specialised knowledge of the subject mishearing a word, especially if the speaker has a strong regional accent. For example in last week's documentary about the Quintinshill train crash, Neil Oliver (who has a south-west Scottish accent) referred to a "lever collar" (a safety device used in a signal box) and on the first occasion this appeared in the subtitles as "lever caller". But the quality of subtitles on live programmes which have to be subtitled in real time is much worse with all sorts of unintelligible gibberish. However my original question (which is not directly related to subtitling) still stands: if someone is speaking at a normal rate and a signer is interpreting in sign language, how much of the subtlety of the speaker's wording is preserved, given that some words have to be spelled out letter-by-letter instead of having a symbol of their own, which slows things down. Would deaf people tend to get a more faithful rendition of the speaker's words if it was *accurately, without howlers* transcribed to subtitles than if it was rendered in sign language? I've always wondered, because I understand that some deaf people prefer one method and some prefer the other. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On 28/05/2015 08:43, NY wrote:
"Martin" wrote in message ... I've always wondered how much information can be conveyed by signing compared with by subtitling, assuming that a) the viewer can read, and b) that the subtitles are an accurate transcription of what was said. If only they were. In my experience, subtitles of pre-recorded programmes on all channels seem to be pretty good. There's the occasional howler which could be due to the subtitler without specialised knowledge of the subject mishearing a word, especially if the speaker has a strong regional accent. For example in last week's documentary about the Quintinshill train crash, Neil Oliver (who has a south-west Scottish accent) referred to a "lever collar" (a safety device used in a signal box) and on the first occasion this appeared in the subtitles as "lever caller". But the quality of subtitles on live programmes which have to be subtitled in real time is much worse with all sorts of unintelligible gibberish. most of that seems to be the voice recognition software. -- David Kennedy http://www.anindianinexile.com |
Sign language vs subtitles
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 |
Sign language vs subtitles
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? |
Sign language vs subtitles
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. |
Sign language vs subtitles
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. British Sign Language and American Sign Language quite different and mutually unintelligible. -- Phil Cook |
Sign language vs subtitles
"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. 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. |
Sign language vs subtitles
|
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 |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:17:06 +0100
David Kennedy wrote: 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? No, thankfully. Do they converse in sign language too? -- Davey. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Sat, 30 May 2015 11:14:26 +0100
Martin wrote: On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:50:44 +0100, Davey wrote: On Sat, 30 May 2015 09:17:06 +0100 David Kennedy wrote: 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? No, thankfully. Do they converse in sign language too? Which sign language, as seen on HIGNFY, did the Swedish entry to ESC use? The Very Pumped Up one! Most un-Swedish-like. I think he borrowed something from Gangnam Style, and then developed it from there. I don't often watch that programme, but I thought that Gary Linker did a good job. -- Davey. |
Sign language vs subtitles
"Davey" wrote in message
... 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? Yes I though it made it very clear what I mean when I said Quote:
I was using "spoken" because that's what was in the Wikipedia article, presumably because it was referring to languages such as English, French and German which are capable of being spoken, as opposed to BSL and ASL which are not - they exist only in signed format. But I was qualifying it by saying "except in their case it would be only a written language" to show that I knew how daft it would be to try to each a deaf person to *speak* (as opposed to *write*) English because learning to speak is done by imitation of what you can hear. Now we've cleared that one up, are you saying that it is preposterous to teach a deaf person to *read* and *write* English, French, German etc, maybe using sign language as a means of conveying the instructions in the same way that spoken instructions would be used for teaching a hearing person to read/write? |
Sign language vs subtitles
David Kennedy writes:
How easy do you think it would be to teach a "spoken" language to a deaf person? I do not know how easy it is, but it is possible. One of my lecturers at university was deaf since birth and could both speak (albeit with a very 'unnatural' intonation) and lip read. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:47:15 +0100
"NY" wrote: Now we've cleared that one up, are you saying that it is preposterous to teach a deaf person to *read* and *write* English, French, German etc, maybe using sign language as a means of conveying the instructions in the same way that spoken instructions would be used for teaching a hearing person to read/write? I have no idea why you think that, it is not what I wrote at all. I said that I thought it should be fairly easy to teach deaf people a written language, being easier than a spoken one: " 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?" How you interpret it to mean what you say above, I have no idea. I see no point in continuing this particular conversation. -- Davey. |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Wed, 27 May 2015 11:12:05 +0100, Clive Page wrote:
I recorded a programme on BBC4 recently and realised that the late-night repeats come with a sign-language interpreter in front (while the ones earlier in the evening do not). This meant the actual programme was reduced to about three quarters of the screen with a somewhat distracting presence on the right-hand side. Although my hearing is good enough, I appreciate that those with hearing loss need assistance so do not object to this if it helps them. But I noticed that the programme had optional subtitles, and when I tried them for a time they seemed to me to be entirely adequate. I suspect there are now very few TVs that can't display these subtitles, so I wondered why broadcasters feel the need to provide a sign-language interpreter as well. I would also have thought that anyone with eyesight good enough to follow the hand movements of the signer would also be able to read the subtitles, and would get more information that way and more rapidly (the signs sometimes went on for some time after the speech had finished). So does anyone know why broadcasters still persist with sign language when it does not more than duplicate the subtitles? This practice by the beeb of broadcasting signed repeats which start after midnight is quite prevalent. For BBC Two anything that starts after midnight is in the twi... sign zone and guaranteed to be so afflicted. It's less clear cut with BBC4 but, in general, signing only afflicts programmes starting around 2 am but this isn't always so consistent. You'd think the beeb's own TV schedule web pages would give an accurate indication but, ime, they're often arse about face in this regard, much better to check on bleb.org to verify which showings are going to be afflicted. I tend to avoid recording the early evening showings on BBC4 to minimise the end credit vandalism since the very late evening/early morning repeats are much less vandalised (and sometimes even left totally unmolested by ****inuity) so it's important to me to verify whether any of the early morning repeats are going to suffer signing vandalism. I do a similar thing with BBC3 programmes. The reason in this case being the avoidance of dog **** embellished by the additional word "New" as well as less end credit vandalism. I very rarely record any late night/ early morning content on BBC1 apart from the odd movie (in many cases, repeats from previous years - I only record them in the hope that the later repeat will be a less vandalised copy I can use to replace the earlier recording). -- Johnny B Good |
Sign language vs subtitles
On Wed, 27 May 2015 19:53:09 +0100, David Kennedy wrote:
On 27/05/2015 16:29, Clive Page wrote: On 27/05/2015 14:45, David Kennedy wrote: It was originally for deaf/dumb people who didn't read. I hadn't thought of that. But the subset of people who watch BBC4 and are deaf and can't read must be rather small. I wonder if it's even above zero. It's not just BBC4 though [is it?] it pops up from time to time on BBC2 as well IIRC On BBC2, it doesn't just 'pop up from time to time', it's guaranteed on programmes which start on or just after midnight during the period described by the continuity announcer as "The Sign Zone". If you want to avoid wasting HDD space on your DVR, cluttering it up with useless copies of SZ afflicted recordings, your most accurate source of information in regard to a programme being SZ afflicted is bleb.org. Don't bother trying to rely on the Beeb's own TV listings site since, ime, this information is often totally misleading. To put not too fine a point on it, it's usually totally arse about face. -- Johnny B Good |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com