Why do some TV broadcasts show a person translating it to sign language instead of using subtitles?
I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don't know why.
You're viewing a single thread.
Would you rather watch content in your native language, or subtitled? If you read translated content, it's fine. But it's not the same as hearing something performed for you. Might be hard to grasp if your language is largely auditory and written, rather than visual and emotive.
Just because sign language is a visual language, does not mean reading is an equivalent. There is a ton of nuance and feeling that goes into communicating through sign language that is not possible through text alone.
Beyond the communication piece, there is respect of an individual who natively speaks a language, and the importance of keeping the language alive.
Minored in ASL, this is spot on 👍
I mean, there wasn't enough information to be certain... but live broadcasts of things would have a signer because the live audience would have to bring in screens to add subtitles to the event...
That is super interesting, thanks a lot for the detailed comment! I wasn't aware that sign language is not directly translatable to text as are other languages.
Would you rather watch content in your native language, or subtitled?
Subtitled, 100 times out of 10. In fact, that's what I already do, alongside a significant portion of the non-anglophone world.
But it’s not the same as hearing something performed for you.
Considering the fact that nearly all TV media is made to only be fully enjoyed if you can hear it, that's a given. Deaf people are missing out either way, though.
There is a ton of nuance and feeling that goes into communicating through sign language that is not possible through text alone.
Just like there's a ton of nuance that can't be communicated by text alone when compared to spoken words, you mean?
the importance of keeping the language alive.
This is the only factor you've presented I can agree with. Programmes are presented with sign language because it's important to maintain awareness that it exists. Deaf people are a very small minority, so keeping their languages alive is essential.
Not deaf/HOH, but I've watched some signed translations out of curiosity and even to me it seems different. They do things like indicating the feeling of music, matching their facial expressions to the characters', and sometimes forgoing a direct translation to confer the mood of a phrase.
Even when you're watching a subbed movie/show, you have the emotion of the voice performance to influence how you read the words. I imagine it's the same for signed VS subbed translations (to anyone who signs, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Yeah, but it's not the translator speaking...
They're translating spoken words.
They wouldn't have someone watch the sign language and then translate that into the subtitles, that wouldn't make any sense logically.
They'd make them off the original spoken words.
So while you're right there's be slight difference, those are already being introduced with the sign language, and subtitles maintains the original phrasing and tone.
But can subtitles accentuate the way sign language can?
Spoken word is to text as sign language is to text is my understanding.
I can emphasize a word with sign language that otherwise can’t when just put to a text.
Yes, exclamation points have existed almost as long as written language has...
You also couldn't do a literal translation of spoken word in sign language. And different people can interpret it differently because of that.
So even if exclamation points didn't exist, it would still be worth it to keep the wording as accurate as possible.
Im deaf and it’s real weird seeing you get downvoted for saying you can’t translate english to sign language verbatim, cause it’s true. Sign language is a lot more like broken english combined with body language, you don’t word for word translate english to sign, there’s too many words for starters, and lost in translation is a thing that exists.
Part of it is well intentioned people that don't know any better, and I'm sure you're aware there's significant parts of the deaf community who are isolanists and view it as their whole identity rather a small piece of what makes a person who they are. And back 50-60 years ago, that was kind of true.
Even back on Reddit, commonsense is rarely common when talking abouts ASL and especially cochlear implants.
So my take on this comes from having a hearing friend who grew up in a anti-cochlear implant / hearing restoration family (deaf parents, grandparents, her and her sister are the only immediate family with “normal” hearing) and their preference was definitely to drive ASL which probably informs my outsider take on the matter.
Now, I'm not part of the deaf community in any real way (don't know any deaf people, and only a few who know sign, but I used to know the alphabet), but im badly near-sighted. Like, I didn't realize that everyone else could see individual leaves on trees instead of vague green blobs where the canopy was. And birds just disappeared into them. The first time I saw a Monet painting, and impressionist art in general, while I still appreciated the beauty my first thought was, "Ah, a painting of the world as seen by a near-sighted person." That said, I'm very happy to wear glasses and see a truer representation of what the rest of the world sees rather than walking through life in an impressionistic world.
So, for me, I can't see why anyone would choose to perceive less of the world than they could. If I could further augment my senses in a convenient manner, I would. If my parents had had to choose between some surgery and me being isolated from so much of the world, I'd ask for the surgery if I could.
The TV show See does a pretty good job of covering the why for this.
My understanding is that part of it is a “we’re not broken, we’re full people” along with “this is our culture” and the restoration of hearing is an erasure or something? I struggle to understand it myself and as a parent I would gladly lose my vision too if it meant restoring any healthy functioning for my son. It’s weird to me/
That said, I’m an outsider so I am only judging not understanding entirely.
Yes, I get the culture aspect of it, I've seen and read a fair amount on the subject, but I just can't see it as worth it. And as technology improves, it's going to be even harder. As for the not broken, I disagree with that, too. It doesn't make them less of people, just like not being able to walk or see doesn't, but there are still many things the average person can do that they can't, just like how I can't legally drive without corrective lenses and would be pretty nervous if I had to.
That’s my take on it too, I am sure I am missing a LOT of nuance and explanation, or at least I hope I am.
Translation isn't a 1 to 1 process. Every language has difference, idioms, etc. My understanding is that sign language is no different.
The translator makes choices to convey meaning, as well as the literal sense.
Im not an expert, I asked my friend.
She is hearing but has deaf parents and grew up with ASL.
I should have said my statement was a regurgitation of someone else’s words, either way you’re also correct.
I have no dog in this argument and my statement should be taken as a “this is what I understand” and an addition to the conversation not a “nah y’all wrong” statement
So...
Your argument for translating this into a different language, is that anytime you translate it, that changes what it says?
Not translating is still best.
And it's pretty offensive that I've already seen comments in here saying deaf people read slower than people who can hear, so hopefully that's now what you're about to throw out.
Being deaf doesn't mean someone can't read well, that's a really old stereotype. If a deaf person is a slow reader that's not because they're deaf.
I think you may be confused as to who you're responding to. I'm reading some outrage in your response that is directed towards others and their statements, nothing that I've written or believe.
There's no argument to be made. A (good) translator into another language with take into account the intent of the original language and translate it into a comparative version. That can mean changing stories, or idioms that no longer land in the new language.
I'm not the person who made any claim about reading speeds, and I would disagree wholeheartedly with that baseless statement.