SW Video Captions Receptive Expressive
adam at FROSTVILLAGE.COM
Sun Apr 15 06:13:22 UTC 2007
On 4/14/07, K.J. Boal <kjoanne403 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I have one question about captioning signed videos... As a hearing person,
> 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
> 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 don't find it difficult to read the caption and watch the signing at the
same time. I can view more than one thing at the same time.
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...
You have a point that SW caption would be better used if it is used on
spoken videos. In fact, that is where I hope that it will eventually go to.
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
> I see the signer doing, it looks more natural to me. Of course, for
> 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.
I think that generally (especially with caption for spoken videos and of
course, literature) SW should be expressive. The way that my brother (Deaf)
sister (hearing) brother-in-law (also Deaf) and I were talking about this
was that if you have the SW as caption with the signer signing, you are
having the "story" read "aloud" to you by the signer. It is not your "voice"
that is doing the telling. When you are reading something, it is your
"voice" that is doing the telling even if it is just in your head. So we
felt that it made sense that a general rule for receptive vs expressive
would probably be best to ask the question, "Who's voice is telling the
story?" If it is being "told" to you (ie from a person signing to you on a
video), then the SW should be receptive. If it is being "told" by you as you
read it, then it should be expressive. I hope that made sense.
Now, the exception that I would see to this is if the writing is being read
"aloud" to you because the common view is expressive. For example, if there
was a video that was showing how to write in SW in Sign Language, and the
signer said, "This is how you write this sign."
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?
Switching??? I don't know. Maybe in the captions of a signed video SW
> Fine Dining & Fancy Food. Check Out This Collection Of Good Eats.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Sw-l