5 ms·

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

by rwmj 4y ago

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 know if this is solved better in other countries). Anyway my theory is that sign language interpreters may be much better at this because sign language uses the same areas of the brain as speaking[1] so they're able to listen and sign much more intuitively than typing. Think if you were able to listen and speak at the same time without your "speech" drowning out what you are listening to. [1] https://maxplanckneuroscience.org/language-is-more-than-speaking-how-the-brain-processes-sign-language/ https://maxplanckneuroscience.org/language-is-more-than-spea...

ClassyJacket 4y ago
Nobody can type fast enough on QWERTY to keep up with human speech, so the comparison is versus chorded typing on a stenography keyboard, or someone repeating the dialogue into voice dictation software which is obviously prone to errors.
- rwmj 4y ago
  As someone who watches TV news with subtitles on, whatever entry technique they're using, the result is not very good [in the UK, can't speak for other countries].
crazygringo 4y ago
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 level of difficulty.
- blowski 4y ago
  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.
  - dfee 4y ago
    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.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      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.
- enkid 4y ago
  I don't know much about sign language. Does it use a different grammar from English?
  - IanCal 4y ago
    Yes, it's best to consider it an entirely different language rather than replacements of words.
  - stevenwoo 4y ago
matthewbarras 4y ago
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...
- nmstoker 4y ago
  Totally agree, the "live" subtitling on BBC is remarkably bad. It's way worse than even using a cheap computer with open source solutions - it's strange no one at the BBC decides to resolve this as it would be easy and could easily give the public a far better result. Even if you took a hit on the most obscure words, off the shelf would outperform the current process by a country mile.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Surely not, syncapatocaption is infallible.

by rwmj 4y ago

ClassyJacket 4y ago

Nobody can type fast enough on QWERTY to keep up with human speech, so the comparison is versus chorded typing on a stenography keyboard, or someone repeating the dialogue into voice dictation software which is obviously prone to errors.

rwmj 4y ago
As someone who watches TV news with subtitles on, whatever entry technique they're using, the result is not very good [in the UK, can't speak for other countries].

crazygringo 4y ago

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 level of difficulty.

blowski 4y ago
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.
- dfee 4y ago
  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.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    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.
enkid 4y ago
I don't know much about sign language. Does it use a different grammar from English?
- IanCal 4y ago
  Yes, it's best to consider it an entirely different language rather than replacements of words.
- stevenwoo 4y ago

matthewbarras 4y ago

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...

nmstoker 4y ago
Totally agree, the "live" subtitling on BBC is remarkably bad. It's way worse than even using a cheap computer with open source solutions - it's strange no one at the BBC decides to resolve this as it would be easy and could easily give the public a far better result. Even if you took a hit on the most obscure words, off the shelf would outperform the current process by a country mile.
OJFord 4y ago
Surely not, syncapatocaption is infallible.