3 ms·

Why even use sign language, when you could just do real-time speech to text, and just read what is being said? Is that actually less efficient than signing? Ed

Why even use sign language, when you could just do real-time speech to text, and just read what is being said? Is that actually less efficient than signing? Edit: So rather than being entirely uneducated on this topic, I'm googling it. There seems to be some disagreement between which is better, and it also appears to be a somewhat sensitive topic (according to non-deaf people who are writing articles about deaf people on the internet. So take that for what its worth)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lozenge 7y ago
Are there even any text to speech systems available that are accurate for such a highly technical vocabulary?
- kccqzy 7y ago
  Yes. The more specialized a field is, the easier it is to tailor the speech recognition system for that.
  - _nalply 7y ago
    I am interested. Do you have pointers?
    - kccqzy 7y ago
      I attended a research conference two years ago with demo showing live speech recognition and live translation. I'm not sure there's any commercial product yet.
      - _nalply 7y ago
        Is it Ava?
WorldMaker 7y ago
I'm not deaf, I only studied ASL in HS and it included some useful lessons on Capital-D Deaf Culture. So I'm not much more of an expert on the subject by any means, but I love language studies. Efficiency is only one spectrum in play. Sign languages are languages distinct and evolutionarily unique from spoken languages. Early attempts such as "Signed English" attempted to minimize the distinction between the spoken language and signed language, but living languages evolve to fit their medium, and sign languages evolved some truly unique grammars and even their own words that don't always reflect relatives in nearby spoken languages. Even though sign languages for the most part haven't adopted their own written languages that better reflect their grammar and uniqueness (and there's really interesting arguments on both sides whether they should), there's an increasing difference between a sign language and its "written language neighbor". One particularly fun example is that American Sign Language (ASL) is much closer to French Sign Language (FSL) on the language family tree than ASL is to British Sign Language (BSL). Despite what you might presume from the spoken language "neighborhoods" of the sign languages, an ASL signer is going to have an easier conversation with an FSL signer than a BSL signer. Which leads to the fact that there are even native speakers whose first and primary language in their lives is a sign language, and with a culture to match (Capital-D Deaf Culture). Written English will always be a foreign language to them, even if it is a second language they have a lot of reason to study from early in life. So it's a quality of life question as much as or more than just an efficiency question. (Just as with most language issues, really. We could probably find a more efficient use of language for English medical/scientific jargon than smashing lots of random bits of Latin and Greek together. But we have what we have for a lot of familiarity and cultural reasons.)
- AcerbicZero 7y ago
  Wow there is so much more there than I realized at first. I probably should have realized that any communication system would have layers, and when you're restricted to a subset of visual signals there would be all sorts of intricacies. The dual-language comment also lines up with a lot of what I've read this morning on the topic, in that many folks who use ASL full time have commented that written English can almost feel like a second language to them. Seriously though, thank you very much for sharing your perspective on this. It's awesome to ask a question (in an area where I have no domain knowledge) and get such a high quality responses.
_nalply 7y ago
I am Deaf myself. It really depends. One of the problems of transcribing stuff is that some nuances are lost. Ask yourself: how is the experience between being there yourself or reading a transcript online? So, usually for social sciences it is a lot better to have a Signed Language interpreter. For hard science it depends on the lecturer. If I have someone droning on, a transcript would be easier on my nerves. If I however have a really good lecturer, a Signed Language is better in catching what is said. You need to consider that lectures are only one part of what you use to study. Also very important are books and self-study. In this light transcripts are just something like a book and we all know that it is not a good idea to learn from books only.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lozenge 7y ago

Are there even any text to speech systems available that are accurate for such a highly technical vocabulary?

kccqzy 7y ago
Yes. The more specialized a field is, the easier it is to tailor the speech recognition system for that.
- _nalply 7y ago
  I am interested. Do you have pointers?
  - kccqzy 7y ago
    I attended a research conference two years ago with demo showing live speech recognition and live translation. I'm not sure there's any commercial product yet.
    - _nalply 7y ago
      Is it Ava?

WorldMaker 7y ago

I'm not deaf, I only studied ASL in HS and it included some useful lessons on Capital-D Deaf Culture. So I'm not much more of an expert on the subject by any means, but I love language studies. Efficiency is only one spectrum in play. Sign languages are languages distinct and evolutionarily unique from spoken languages. Early attempts such as "Signed English" attempted to minimize the distinction between the spoken language and signed language, but living languages evolve to fit their medium, and sign languages evolved some truly unique grammars and even their own words that don't always reflect relatives in nearby spoken languages. Even though sign languages for the most part haven't adopted their own written languages that better reflect their grammar and uniqueness (and there's really interesting arguments on both sides whether they should), there's an increasing difference between a sign language and its "written language neighbor". One particularly fun example is that American Sign Language (ASL) is much closer to French Sign Language (FSL) on the language family tree than ASL is to British Sign Language (BSL). Despite what you might presume from the spoken language "neighborhoods" of the sign languages, an ASL signer is going to have an easier conversation with an FSL signer than a BSL signer. Which leads to the fact that there are even native speakers whose first and primary language in their lives is a sign language, and with a culture to match (Capital-D Deaf Culture). Written English will always be a foreign language to them, even if it is a second language they have a lot of reason to study from early in life. So it's a quality of life question as much as or more than just an efficiency question. (Just as with most language issues, really. We could probably find a more efficient use of language for English medical/scientific jargon than smashing lots of random bits of Latin and Greek together. But we have what we have for a lot of familiarity and cultural reasons.)

AcerbicZero 7y ago
Wow there is so much more there than I realized at first. I probably should have realized that any communication system would have layers, and when you're restricted to a subset of visual signals there would be all sorts of intricacies. The dual-language comment also lines up with a lot of what I've read this morning on the topic, in that many folks who use ASL full time have commented that written English can almost feel like a second language to them. Seriously though, thank you very much for sharing your perspective on this. It's awesome to ask a question (in an area where I have no domain knowledge) and get such a high quality responses.

_nalply 7y ago

I am Deaf myself. It really depends. One of the problems of transcribing stuff is that some nuances are lost. Ask yourself: how is the experience between being there yourself or reading a transcript online? So, usually for social sciences it is a lot better to have a Signed Language interpreter. For hard science it depends on the lecturer. If I have someone droning on, a transcript would be easier on my nerves. If I however have a really good lecturer, a Signed Language is better in catching what is said. You need to consider that lectures are only one part of what you use to study. Also very important are books and self-study. In this light transcripts are just something like a book and we all know that it is not a good idea to learn from books only.