7 ms·

Very cool, especially for people who lose their hearing later in life. For other deaf people it's important to remember that written english is not a form of th

Very cool, especially for people who lose their hearing later in life. For other deaf people it's important to remember that written english is not a form of their native sign language¹, so this would be like (because it is) reading captions in a second language. Still potentially useful but with more limitations. Not that there's necessarily a technological way around those limitations either. ¹ Afaik this applies to all other sign languages outside english too. Signed Exact English exists and probably other-language equivalents too but I've never met a native speaker.

spullara 4y ago
Folks that use ASL use fingerspelling which is of course just written english, no? https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/fingerspelling/fingerspelling.htm https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/fingerspelling/fingerspelli...
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I have only basic ASL and am by no means an authority. But I think between native ASL speakers its use would be very rare, mostly just to clarify an exact spelling for something that was going to be written down in english. Native ASL speakers who are completely illiterate in english certainly exist, and I'm not sure at all if they know or use finger spelling.
- craigbaker 4y ago
  Fingerspelling is just a path for borrowing individual words from English. It is not a part of native ASL vocabulary or grammar; that is to say, ASL does not consist of fingerspelled English sentences.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kiba 4y ago
  No. Fingerspelled words are not written English, but literally spelled out English words. For example, it would be like me saying, "'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o'" instead of whatever translated 'hello' in ASL.
- Tarragon 4y ago
  Nope. https://www.signingsavvy.com/article/45/The+difference+between+ASL+and+English+signs https://www.signingsavvy.com/article/45/The+difference+betwe... Here's a fun example. ASL allows, maybe even requires, negation after the statement. An interpreter friend of mine was interpreting Wayne's World in a mixed crowd. The whole "<statement>... NOT!" joke gets laughs from the hearing audience and the Deaf audience doesn't understand why.
  - TRiG_Ireland 4y ago
    I think that could be interpreted. Statement + NO is the standard word order in ASL, but there would usually be a suprasegmental element. That is, the negation is also (or, sometimes, only) shown with a headshake which spreads over the entire length of the statement. Leaving out the suprasegmental, making it a flat statement, and then pausing before the NO might perhaps work. Maybe. However, ASL also makes much, much heavier use of rhetorical questions than English does. You might even introduce yourself with "MY NAME WHAT? [NAME]" (i.e., "What is my name? [Name]"). So perhaps it would just look like you're doing that. (Disclaimer: I don't know ASL. I know some Irish Sign Language, which is related, but dropped out before completing my interpreter training. I have a bit of a fascination with sign language linguistics, but I'm no expert.)
norgie 4y ago
It is true and something more people should understand that ASL is not a signed version English, but most ASL speakers are pretty much bilingual. They are taught to read English, and most places also encourage learning to speak English, generally with speech-language pathologists, though some in the community are understandably reluctant.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Right, which is why I'm pointing out the second language nature of it since a lot of people are bilingual and I think have an intuitive grasp of the difference in ease between captions in your native language and captions in your second.
- blamestross 4y ago
  "most" is an interesting choice of word here. It's true. 70% of deaf children learn to read English [1]. But I don't think that's enough to consider it a safe assumption. [1] https://www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/advocacy/weare_hv.html https://www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/advocacy/w...
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    Why isn't it more than 70%? I'm assuming this is in an english language majority language, so everyone that can should want to be able to read english.
    - blamestross 4y ago
      Because learning written English isn't easy when the sounds it represents are not part of your sensory experience. It's more like learning Egyptian hieroglyphics. Plus many parents either can't or won't invest the effort/money to make it happen. Lots of parents never even learn ASL to communicate with their own kids. Met a mother in a beginner ASL class finally deciding to learn enough to communicate with her 20 year old daughter (Who was born deaf and illiterate FTR). It broke my heart when I met the daughter and found out she basically had no exposure to other signers too. Deaf all her life and she didn't have a name-sign. There's "cognitive impairment" and then there's "nobody bothered to communicate enough for a kid to build communication skills."
gedy 4y ago
> Not that there's necessarily a technological way around those limitations either. I can see at some point here being able to wear AR glasses that overlay hand signing over the speaker
generalizations 4y ago
The problem with ASL compared to lip reading is that it's a form of self-segregation, limiting the deaf person to primarily communicating only with other people who know ASL. If these glasses are effective, it could help bridge that gap.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Why would you compare an entire language to a single technique like that? There is no "the problem" with ASL any more than there is "the problem" with english or any other language. Yes communicating across the barrier can be a challenge but that's just the nature of having more than one language in use.
  - TehShrike 4y ago
    Only being able to see ASL is different from speaking a different language – it's still English. Not being able to hear is more like not being able to read. It's the same language you already know, but you're missing out on one of the primary ways people use it.
    - elliekelly 4y ago
      No, ASL is not English. ASL is a complete and distinct natural language in its own right.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Oh you should definitely look it up then because this is completely incorrect. Sign languages are fully distinct languages with their own histories and influences. For example the sign languages spoken in the US and in the UK have different ancestries and are not mutually comprehensible, despite both countries using english as spoken languages.
    - metal_am 4y ago
      ASL is based on French, so the structure is completely different.

spullara 4y ago

Folks that use ASL use fingerspelling which is of course just written english, no? https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/fingerspelling/fingerspelling.htm https://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/fingerspelling/fingerspelli...

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I have only basic ASL and am by no means an authority. But I think between native ASL speakers its use would be very rare, mostly just to clarify an exact spelling for something that was going to be written down in english. Native ASL speakers who are completely illiterate in english certainly exist, and I'm not sure at all if they know or use finger spelling.
craigbaker 4y ago
Fingerspelling is just a path for borrowing individual words from English. It is not a part of native ASL vocabulary or grammar; that is to say, ASL does not consist of fingerspelled English sentences.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kiba 4y ago
No. Fingerspelled words are not written English, but literally spelled out English words. For example, it would be like me saying, "'h', 'e', 'l', 'l', 'o'" instead of whatever translated 'hello' in ASL.
Tarragon 4y ago
Nope. https://www.signingsavvy.com/article/45/The+difference+between+ASL+and+English+signs https://www.signingsavvy.com/article/45/The+difference+betwe... Here's a fun example. ASL allows, maybe even requires, negation after the statement. An interpreter friend of mine was interpreting Wayne's World in a mixed crowd. The whole "<statement>... NOT!" joke gets laughs from the hearing audience and the Deaf audience doesn't understand why.
- TRiG_Ireland 4y ago
  I think that could be interpreted. Statement + NO is the standard word order in ASL, but there would usually be a suprasegmental element. That is, the negation is also (or, sometimes, only) shown with a headshake which spreads over the entire length of the statement. Leaving out the suprasegmental, making it a flat statement, and then pausing before the NO might perhaps work. Maybe. However, ASL also makes much, much heavier use of rhetorical questions than English does. You might even introduce yourself with "MY NAME WHAT? [NAME]" (i.e., "What is my name? [Name]"). So perhaps it would just look like you're doing that. (Disclaimer: I don't know ASL. I know some Irish Sign Language, which is related, but dropped out before completing my interpreter training. I have a bit of a fascination with sign language linguistics, but I'm no expert.)

norgie 4y ago

It is true and something more people should understand that ASL is not a signed version English, but most ASL speakers are pretty much bilingual. They are taught to read English, and most places also encourage learning to speak English, generally with speech-language pathologists, though some in the community are understandably reluctant.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Right, which is why I'm pointing out the second language nature of it since a lot of people are bilingual and I think have an intuitive grasp of the difference in ease between captions in your native language and captions in your second.
blamestross 4y ago
"most" is an interesting choice of word here. It's true. 70% of deaf children learn to read English [1]. But I don't think that's enough to consider it a safe assumption. [1] https://www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/advocacy/weare_hv.html https://www.handsandvoices.org/articles/education/advocacy/w...
- kzrdude 4y ago
  Why isn't it more than 70%? I'm assuming this is in an english language majority language, so everyone that can should want to be able to read english.
  - blamestross 4y ago
    Because learning written English isn't easy when the sounds it represents are not part of your sensory experience. It's more like learning Egyptian hieroglyphics. Plus many parents either can't or won't invest the effort/money to make it happen. Lots of parents never even learn ASL to communicate with their own kids. Met a mother in a beginner ASL class finally deciding to learn enough to communicate with her 20 year old daughter (Who was born deaf and illiterate FTR). It broke my heart when I met the daughter and found out she basically had no exposure to other signers too. Deaf all her life and she didn't have a name-sign. There's "cognitive impairment" and then there's "nobody bothered to communicate enough for a kid to build communication skills."

gedy 4y ago

> Not that there's necessarily a technological way around those limitations either. I can see at some point here being able to wear AR glasses that overlay hand signing over the speaker

generalizations 4y ago

The problem with ASL compared to lip reading is that it's a form of self-segregation, limiting the deaf person to primarily communicating only with other people who know ASL. If these glasses are effective, it could help bridge that gap.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Why would you compare an entire language to a single technique like that? There is no "the problem" with ASL any more than there is "the problem" with english or any other language. Yes communicating across the barrier can be a challenge but that's just the nature of having more than one language in use.
- TehShrike 4y ago
  Only being able to see ASL is different from speaking a different language – it's still English. Not being able to hear is more like not being able to read. It's the same language you already know, but you're missing out on one of the primary ways people use it.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    No, ASL is not English. ASL is a complete and distinct natural language in its own right.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Oh you should definitely look it up then because this is completely incorrect. Sign languages are fully distinct languages with their own histories and influences. For example the sign languages spoken in the US and in the UK have different ancestries and are not mutually comprehensible, despite both countries using english as spoken languages.
  - metal_am 4y ago
    ASL is based on French, so the structure is completely different.