Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC Subtitle Guidelines

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#71

Post by adammarples »

lazyeye wrote: post #59
retrac wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sign languages are not coded speech. They are languages with their own grammar and vocabulary. For example, American SL is descended from Old French Sign Language and is partially understandable by French SL speakers today, while British SL is completely different, not in the same language family. It is even possible to write sign language. it is done like with spoken language. The most basic components, akin to phon…

This has to be a generational thing. There is no way a deaf person growing up now is not going to be using the internet.

A speech and language therapist tells me that spelling and reading is hard for deaf children because we match phonics to text but they don't have access to phonics, so they have much lower literacy levels without specialist help

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#72

Post by foldr »

jameshart wrote: post #51
TechBro8615 wrote: post #4

Something I've wondered... when politicians give speeches they often have some hand gesturing from a sign language interpreter standing next to them. But I've never understood why this is better than subtitles. If you're deaf then wouldn't you rather read text than follow sign language?

Think about how you learn to read - you 'sound out' words, turning letters into sounds to match them to a pronunciation to figure out what word is represented. Now imagine trying to learn how to do that when you have never heard any words spoken out loud . People who are deaf from birth often have a lot of difficulty with spelling and reading, because both skills are closely connected to saying and hearing words. Con…

The more salient point is that English is going to be a second language for people who grew up deaf (with a completely unrelated sign language probably being the first language).

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#73

Post by aaron695 »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #4

Something I've wondered... when politicians give speeches they often have some hand gesturing from a sign language interpreter standing next to them. But I've never understood why this is better than subtitles. If you're deaf then wouldn't you rather read text than follow sign language?

[dead]

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#74

Post by greggarious »

Do they have a guideline for WHEN subtitles are used?

I remember sitting in a hostel common room the day after Mark Duggan was murdered[1] and half joking "Are they giving that Scottish guy subtitles as a joke?" and being told "This is a very serious situation".

The previous night, the "mates" had been "joshing" me about how much more violent America is... then their eyes went wide when I was like "Well, that's a BRITISH cop car on fire, I'm switching to water... it's gonna be fun finding our way home... doesn't the queen live near here?"

(To be fair, the "chavs" were very respectful once they heard an American accent and let us walk home, but part of that may have been because they didn't grok that they check us for guns at the airport and that rumors every bald black clad hacker is in the CIA are greatly exaggerated so they totally could have knifed us all and taken our iPods, lolllll.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Mark_Duggan#Shooti...

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#75

Post by stevenwoo »

enkid wrote: post #38
crazygringo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the closed captioning is still extremely good. The typists use chorded keyboards for speed and yes they occasionally make mistakes but everything is generally quite clear and accurate. On the other hand, signing involves actual translation , not just transcription, which is much more likely to drop meaning or introduce confusion. Translation is already hard enough, and live translation is a whole other leve…

I don't know much about sign language. Does it use a different grammar from English?

I learned UK and USA use incompatible versions of sign language from online discussion of a recent television show.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#76

Post by zdragnar »

jameshart wrote: post #51
TechBro8615 wrote: post #4

Something I've wondered... when politicians give speeches they often have some hand gesturing from a sign language interpreter standing next to them. But I've never understood why this is better than subtitles. If you're deaf then wouldn't you rather read text than follow sign language?

Think about how you learn to read - you 'sound out' words, turning letters into sounds to match them to a pronunciation to figure out what word is represented. Now imagine trying to learn how to do that when you have never heard any words spoken out loud . People who are deaf from birth often have a lot of difficulty with spelling and reading, because both skills are closely connected to saying and hearing words. Con…

That doesn't sound too different from learning Mandarin or any other Chinese dialect. There are some parts of characters which are roughly phonetic, but generally speaking you're not going to know how to write a word by hearing it, or how to speak a word by reading it.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#77

Post by zdragnar »

dfee wrote: post #57
blowski wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not deaf, don't know any sign language, am not close friends with anyone who does. However, I understand that it's much easier to be expressive in sign language. Non-verbal language used by the speaker - sarcasm, tone, inflection - either translate badly, or get lost entirely when transliterating into subtitles. A talented sign-language translator is able to carry this over much better.

Yes, but. Now, you’re getting the inflection of the interpreter and not the speaker (derivative). Certainly you’re not hearing inflection on the original orator, either, so maybe it’s a mixed bag.

Sign language (at least ASL) involves a lot of facial expression in addition to using your hands. There's a lot of room to creatively translate the unspoken message in a vocal inflection into signed message.

Subtitles in general, and live captioning especially, avoid editorializing or taking creative license- they're literal translations of words without other cues added in.

One nice exception to this has been the community subtitling work involved in various Taskmaster spinoff series, where explanations for cultural jokes or idioms are added into the subtitles for foreign audiences, especially when the joke is a pun or relies on a mispronounced word to make sense.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#78

Post by OJFord »

matthewbarras wrote: post #60
rwmj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I live with someone whose first language isn't English I basically watch everything with subtitles. And live subtitling - while it's a thing - isn't that good. Try turning on subtitles for something like a news programme or live broadcast and it'll usually be quite delayed, with lots of misspellings and even outright wrong text. (This is true for premier public broadcasters in the UK such as the BBC, I don't kn…

We have subtitles on all the time for my little boy and can attest that the BBC is very poor - even on iPlayer. Interesting side note: if ever subtitles are turned off, or we are watching TV elsewhere, me and my wife can't 'hear' well. Even if the volume is up. Like we've untrained our ability...

Surely not, syncapatocaption is infallible.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#80

Post by lolinder »

amelius wrote: post #70
retrac wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sign languages are not coded speech. They are languages with their own grammar and vocabulary. For example, American SL is descended from Old French Sign Language and is partially understandable by French SL speakers today, while British SL is completely different, not in the same language family. It is even possible to write sign language. it is done like with spoken language. The most basic components, akin to phon…

Still, I suppose that many people still want the original phrasing, not a translation where subtleties might get lost.

Closed captions are usually available for that need (which is also helpful for people who became hard of hearing later in life). But that's a separate need than what is effectively translation.
Post reply on HN