View Single Post
Old May 27th 15, 05:18 PM posted to
external usenet poster
Posts: 1,329
Default 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

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.