Current Events > Wtf is this?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0bc82a03.jpg

I have questions.

You've never seen ASL interpreters at speeches and concerts and whatnot?

They just relay what's being said, and some of them are entertaining as hell, honestly more lively than the presenters.

Admittedly it's more necessary in a live space, but some people could definitely prefer consuming a story via the language through which they communicate instead of just subtitles.

Can they not just read subtitles? Unless I'm ignorant to something that makes asl better.

They have a sign-language expert in a corner box doing the dialogue.

A movie with sign language instead of subtitles.

party_animal07 posted...

Can they not just read subtitles? Unless I'm ignorant to something that makes asl better.

Would you - actually, let's make that "would the average person", because this is subjective - rather read subtitles, or just hear the dialog in your spoken language?

Sign language for those who speak it is exactly like spoken language is for us. This is basically their equivalent of a dub (without lip re-syncing).

On the other hand, I did find myself very much wondering how it would actually work, but we've got our answer for that already:

JoCrazy posted...

They have a sign-language expert in a corner box doing the dialogue.

party_animal07 posted...

Can they not just read subtitles? Unless I'm ignorant to something that makes asl better.

My understanding is ASL is a lot more interactive/conveys emotions better than just straight captions

party_animal07 posted...

Can they not just read subtitles? Unless I'm ignorant to something that makes asl better.

Im more than half-deaf, dont need sign language but subtitles I do.

I feel ASL would be distracting. Granted, Im not full deaf, it may be for them and it makes sense for the 100% deaf.

Also it is good practice for those wanting to learn asl.

I've not seen sign language used at all since I went to church with my family as a child. I think this is a pretty neat idea, I was just a bit confused on what exactly I was looking at.

FolkenRawr posted...

My understanding is ASL is a lot more interactive/conveys emotions better than just straight captions

Oh, FUCK yeah.

I'm not kidding in the slightest when I say that I've seen ASL interpreters give a better speech than the person they're interpreting.

It's not a blank-faced person doing signs, it's got a lot of movement and facial expressions and whatnot to add emotional context.

When comparing them to subtitles, it's a little like the difference between reading a book yourself and hearing, like, Jeremy Irons doing a dramatic reading of it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Im actually quite surprised it isnt higher for NZ and Aus. Or is that just Britain dragging the number down?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y6I2jNEwtTc

DrizztLink posted...

Oh, FUCK yeah.

I'm not kidding in the slightest when I say that I've seen ASL interpreters give a better speech than the person they're interpreting.

It's not a blank-faced person doing signs, it's got a lot of movement and facial expressions and whatnot to add emotional context.

When comparing them to subtitles, it's a little like the difference between reading a book yourself and hearing, like, Jeremy Irons doing a dramatic reading of it.

I think I can see this.

Like, a caption/subtitle would just put the emotion in parentheses (ie. "(sad) I can't believe you'd do this.") but with an ASL interpreter signing it and showing the emotional sadness of the line on their face, perhaps it's more immersive, helps them understand the emotional delivery of the line better. If I am understanding this right.

Ivynn posted...

I think I can see this.

Like, a caption/subtitle would just put the emotion in parentheses (ie. "(sad) I can't believe you'd do this.") but with an ASL interpreter signing it and showing the emotional sadness of the line on their face, perhaps it's more immersive, helps them understand the emotional delivery of the line better. If I am understanding this right.

Exactly.

Couple it with this being how they typically communicate daily, and it helps make the experience more engaging/emotional/real/whatever you'd like.

I keep stressing that "daily communication" bit just because I see it as a whole "native fluency" thing. If someone reads, writes, speaks, thinks, and dreams in Portuguese, then they'll have an "easier time" with media in Portuguese, for lack of better phrasing. They can still get everything just fine from a show with, like, subtitled German, I'm not saying there's no place for foreign language media, it's just however much easier, and it's as variable as anything else regarding people.

Complete aside, but it shows how deeply nonverbal language like that can show itself developmentally:

Baby babble has a specific definition: one or two syllables followed by nonsense reputation of the sounds. "Mama a ma ma ah," stuff like that. The interesting thing is that languages have distinct babbles. A baby babbling in Japanese will use different sounds in different ways than a baby babbling in Russian, because they're "playing" with languages with different sounds and rhythms.

The super interesting thing is that it happens to babies in signing households. I've seen video (and have never again managed to find it, which is irritating as shit) of a deaf baby in a deaf family, all of them at the table, and the baby tosses up a hand, almost makes a sign, and then starts playing with their fingers.

That's babbling. The baby is doing the exact same thing, meaning that this is an actual developmental milestone expressing through sign, and that's the coolest shit ever.

All of this being tl;dr for "people are most comfortable with their native language, people who sign are no different," I never claimed to not be extra.

A viewing option.

Trumble posted...

Would you - actually, let's make that "would the average person", because this is subjective - rather read subtitles, or just hear the dialog in your spoken language?

Sign language for those who speak it is exactly like spoken language is for us. This is basically their equivalent of a dub (without lip re-syncing).

On the other hand, I did find myself very much wondering how it would actually work, but we've got our answer for that already:

to that end, how would they know what means what with sign language? like how do you convey to someone that bread is bread when trying to teach them sign language? how do you explain leavened?

being able to hear plays a massive role in how we actually learn

I took ASL in grad school, and my professor mentioned that some people in the deaf community do not read and write well. So subtitles might be less useful.

Obviously that was just one persons perspective and does not represent the thoughts of the community as a whole.

JoCrazy posted...

Im more than half-deaf, dont need sign language but subtitles I do.

I feel ASL would be distracting. Granted, Im not full deaf, it may be for them and it makes sense for the 100% deaf.

Maybe not everything is aimed at you, and maybe that's ok.

I get the benefits of ASL over subtitles but I feel like they'd be much more distracting than subtitles too. That could just be from my inexperience with ASL though and making a dumb assumption.

This is excellent.

The BBC does a lot of signed content, and I know that people who learn BSL really appreciate it over subtitles.

Trumble posted...

Would you - actually, let's make that "would the average person", because this is subjective - rather read subtitles, or just hear the dialog in your spoken language?

Sign language for those who speak it is exactly like spoken language is for us. This is basically their equivalent of a dub (without lip re-syncing).

Whether it's written words or sign language, they're still "hearing" the dialogue through symbols on screen. I don't see where the two are much different as far as processing goes.

Then again I'm not deaf so not sure which they'd prefer. Closed captions also provide things like sound effects, the person's name speaking, and music playing along with the dialogue. Seems like it would be hard to squeeze all that in using sign language.

MarshMellow posted...

Whether it's written words or sign language, they're still "hearing" the dialogue through symbols on screen. I don't see where the two are much different as far as processing goes.

Reading subtitles is pretty much (I would assume) the same for them as it is for us.

Seeing sign language is like verbal communication is for us. As others have explained (and honestly, even I kinda learned from this topic a bit), it expresses far more than subtitles can, in much the same way as things like tone / volume of voice can express things in spoken language that subtitles can't capture (or can only capture awkwardly).

NGL, this actually sounds like something I would be interested in watching even though I don't know ASL and don't have hearing problems.

Kinda like how I watched The Emperor's New Groove in Spanish a time or two as a kid just because it was different.

AbstraktProfSC2 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y6I2jNEwtTc

Thats awesome.

Meh

Is this topic really about complaining about the inclusion of ASL or am I missing something?

I think tc has a genuine question and at first reading i probably had same reaction.
All for inclusion of them including it but i was also curious how closed captions didnt satisfy the need for it before.

Was thinking this must be them utilizing an AI use and using it as a disguise of them pretending they actually care more for minority group.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

Is this topic really about complaining about the inclusion of ASL or am I missing something?

Yes, but seems to be more in the sense of "don't subtitles already do the job" rather than "haha fuck deaf people". So - a bit ignorant, but (probably) not malicious.

ASL and captions does seem like an example of putting a hat on a hat.

When watching anime I prefer dubs to subs because subtitles divide my focus. With ASL, I would think it is more distracting because you'd need to maintain focus on the ASL interpreter for longer.

It's one thing to ask "Why not subtitles?"

It's another to start to become insistent, like "Yeah, but still, subtitles."

If you're not deaf, you probably don't have an understanding of how deaf people perceive ASL, so insisting this is unnecessary is silly.

cheat4ever posted...

ASL and captions does seem like an example of putting a hat on a hat.

When watching anime I prefer dubs to subs because subtitles divide my focus. With ASL, I would think it is more distracting because you'd need to maintain focus on the ASL interpreter for longer.

You're not deaf so you can't imagine what it's like to have ASL be your primary communication. You see ASL as a distraction because you're not used to it. Maybe a deaf person can divide their time between the sign language and the visual quite easily and it comes naturally. I'm not deaf either so I wouldn't know.

FolkenRawr posted...

My understanding is ASL is a lot more interactive/conveys emotions better than just straight captions

That's kind of a cool point.

Yeah its ignorant but I think TC is admitting that. Children learn ASL before they learn to read so obviously this is a great thing.

As far as the emotion explanation, couldnt they see the tone its coming from looking at the actors in the movie as they read rhe subtitles?
If its more for children I can see that being a cool wanted addition.

Feel like this is a classic CE topic where people feel like attacking or being aggressive to somebody who has a genuine harmless question for no reason.
TC couldve given more content to his original posts though.

Idk about TCs posting history so idk if stemmed from that.

FLAMING_EVIL_HOMER posted...

As far as the emotion explanation, couldnt they see the tone its coming from looking at the actors in the movie as they read rhe subtitles?
If its more for children I can see that being a cool wanted addition.

Feel like this is a classic CE topic where people feel like attacking or being aggressive to somebody who has a genuine harmless question for no reason.
TC couldve given more content to his original posts though.

Idk about TCs posting history so idk if stemmed from that.

I don't think many are talking about TC specifically, there were others in the topic making assumptions and appearing insistent about the lack of need due to subtitles.

I didn't mean to sound malicious. I just saw that ad and was confused on what exactly that Superman ad was supposed to be advertising.

Super_Slash posted...

I didn't mean to sound malicious. I just saw that ad and was confused on what exactly that Superman ad was supposed to be advertising.

That Superman on HBO has an ASL viewing option enabled. It's honestly not confusing.

Super_Slash posted...

I didn't mean to sound malicious. I just saw that ad and was confused on what exactly that Superman ad was supposed to be advertising.

You're good, but I'd recommend phrasing the title differently. I imagine some people are reading it as more dismissive or mocking instead of a general "I don't understand."

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yeah pretty much.

okay to be blunt it's (mostly) for illiterate people who only speak ASL

edit: 21 percent of american adults are illiterate and 54 percent have below a 6th grade level.

I looked it up because of the BSL post in this topic, but apparently people who use ASL can't communicate with people who use BSL (just using sign language, I mean)?

something about ASL having a French root, or something like that.

BSL and ASL are just different languages. Both are different languages from English.

I know, I just thought it was interesting since it's not something that someone might immediately pick up on (at least, not me)