SW Video Captions Receptive Expressive

K.J. Boal kjoanne403 at HOTMAIL.COM
Sun Apr 15 04:08:56 UTC 2007

>From: "Valerie Sutton" <signwriting at MAC.COM>
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>CC: "Short James" <jshort at harkle.com>
>Subject: [sw-l] SW Video Captions Receptive Expressive
>Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:07:33 -0700
>SignWriting List
>April 14, 2007
>Ingvild Roald wrote:
>>I agree that for transcription and captioning, receptive is easier.  But 
>>we should all agree on some way to tell that we are writing  receptive, 
>>say we used the qutation mark symbols for that? Just a  suggestion
>Hello Ingvild and Everyone!
>You are absolutely correct that there are several issues connected  with 
>captioning, whether it be Receptive or Expressive, that need to  be 
>discussed by all of us...This is an exciting time...
>I have changed the name of this thread to SW Video Captions Receptive  
>Expressive, so we can discuss the issues...
>I am also including James Short in the discussion. James works in  
>captioning video and media on the internet, and directs Harkle.com  (Hi 
>James!)....and is also on our Board, and has helped us with our  videos 
>So here is what is on my mind...
>I believe there will be a need for BOTH kinds of  captioning..Receptive and 
>Expressive, depending on the circumstance...
>For example, when I transcribed Goldilocks from video, we created  printed 
>books from that transcription. The printed books are in the  Expressive. 
>That is what Deaf people have requested for printed books.
>Let us imagine creating a Goldilocks video with captions to  coordinate 
>with those books. In that case, wouldn't the teacher want  the captions to 
>match the printed books?
>So we could do BOTH a Receptive and Expressive captioning of the same  
>video, for different purposes....
>Or do you all disagree? What is your opinion?
>Val ;-)
I have one question about captioning signed videos... As a hearing person, I 
know I like captioning on my favourite TV shows because I can read the 
captioning if I miss what the actors said... but I can look at the 
captioning and listen to the dialogue at the same time because I'm using two 
different senses.  With signed videos, you have to choose whether you're 
reading the captioning or watching the signing.  Is it really that useful?

I like the SW captioning, don't get me wrong... I just think it would be 
more useful on spoken videos than signed videos.  Just a thought...

As for receptive vs. expressive captioning (on the assumption that nobody 
else agrees with what I said above - smile!), I personally like expressive 
because that's what I'm used to reading... even though it doesn't match what 
I see the signer doing, it looks more natural to me.  Of course, for people 
who are used to reading receptive SW like Val, Charles and some of the 
others... for you, it might look more natural to see receptive captioning.

What would be a reason for switching from expressive to receptive within a 
document?  I know there was a suggestion that in a conversation one 
"speaker" might be written expressively and the other receptively, but 
having the three lanes to mimic body posture would handle that more 
naturally than even quotation marks.  Are there any other reasons?

Just asking...

Fine Dining & Fancy Food. Check Out This Collection Of Good Eats. 

More information about the Sw-l mailing list