I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.
I’m profound deaf. I sign, write and speak. :)
Well, sign language aren’t superior. Having both : subtitles (hard hearing people) and sign language (deaf people) is better. I prefer subtitle because it is closer to the speech and i’m not fond of sign video. Often the sign interpreter is small and sign very quickly.
In general, i prefer text, it help me focusing on the content instead of the person and use less bandwidth…
Sign language still lacks lot vocabulary. It’s a young language «created» in the 18s when Abée de l’Épée founded the first deaf school. And i had to create lot technical signs with sign language interpreters during my agricultural course. Furthermore, they don’t have an official sign writing yet, and its a problem for keeping human knowledge and culture outside video and technological device. So there is still lot things to do and improve.
In France, lot deaf people aren’t fluent with French writing due to the lack of bilingual school (French writing and French sign language) and interpreters (eg : only 200 hours in sign language for 1 year in universities).
So having sign language improves a lot the accessibility for deaf people as they are not fluent with writing language. For me, i prefer both. Both are good and it meet each people need. :)
Thanks for sharing!
And thank for your interesting question ! :)
Mind it only reflect my opinion and i do think other deaf people will have a different stance with mine about sign language. :)
Would you rather watch content in your native language, or subtitled? If you read translated content, it’s fine. But it’s not the same as hearing something performed for you. Might be hard to grasp if your language is largely auditory and written, rather than visual and emotive.
Just because sign language is a visual language, does not mean reading is an equivalent. There is a ton of nuance and feelitghst goes into communicating through sign language that is not possible through text alone.
Beyond the communication piece, there is respect of an individual who natively speaks a language, and the importance of keeping the language alive.
feelitghst
There’s that nuance.
Minored in ASL, this is spot on 👍
Would you rather watch content in your native language, or subtitled?
Subtitled, 100 times out of 10. In fact, that’s what I already do, alongside a significant portion of the non-anglophone world.
But it’s not the same as hearing something performed for you.
Considering the fact that nearly all TV media is made to only be fully enjoyed if you can hear it, that’s a given. Deaf people are missing out either way, though.
There is a ton of nuance and feeling that goes into communicating through sign language that is not possible through text alone.
Just like there’s a ton of nuance that can’t be communicated by text alone when compared to spoken words, you mean?
the importance of keeping the language alive.
This is the only factor you’ve presented I can agree with. Programmes are presented with sign language because it’s important to maintain awareness that it exists. Deaf people are a very small minority, so keeping their languages alive is essential.
I have only ever seen this at live events and so the persons actually there would not be able to see subtitles.
For one thing there are probably people who know sign language but can not read.
i am not Deaf, but i imagine it is easier having stuff presented in your native language.
It’s done because sign language is like speech. There are extra channels of communication present in sign language beyond just the words. There’s equivalents of tone and inflection, and (I beleive) even accents. Like, this video of this lady performing “Fuck You” in ASL is what made it click for me. She’s just so fucking expressive, in a way that subtitles could never be.
Sign language is speech, it’s just non-verbal speech.
Thanks for pointing this out, I’ve updated my comment to get rid of the unnecessary distinction.
Or this ASL of Rap God
Most of my girlfriend’s family is deaf. They read fairly slowly and end up usually not really following subtitles very easily. Sign language is fastest for them to understand.
I’ve heard that because written English is phonetic - meaning it shows how the sounds are (approximately) - then for people who have always been deaf that doesn’t make the same sense, and reading words is a bit like reading a bunch of telephone numbers and remembering what they mean.
I.e. the same as a programming language, which can be easily learned to be read at astounding speed… Also, written English is one of the least phonetic languages you could possibly find.
Not really. You can still sound out the phonemes in a programming language. Perhaps if the whole thing were perl memes. And while I agree English orthography is a mess, for “not phonetic” it holds no candle to Chinese.
Maybe Chinese is a better comparison, I hadn’t thought of that.
Beides being more natural to follow for native Sign “speakers” (do you say Sneakers? No idea), at live broadcasts it is way more efficient than live subtitling
A lot of these comments are American so I thought I would provide a different point of view. In the UK it is a legal requirement for some broadcasters to have a certain percentage of signed programmes.
To add to this, repeats with added sign language were (are?) often broadcast late at night because you were meant to set your video to record them to use as teaching materials. wasn’t just sign language, a lot of the videos shown in school was stuff that had been taped from 3am
If sign language is your first language, any written language is like a foreign language that you might’ve learned but aren’t a native speaker in.
ASL (or whichever sign language) is NOT a direct visual translation of English or French or Mandarin or whatever. It’s a totally different language and the written language is a second language. People might be highly proficient at reading and writing English in an English speaking country but it’s a different language.
And incredibly regional as well.
Any isolated language with a small local population is going to differentiate quickly, and while the Internet is bringing everyone together and making written language more consistent, it’s not like deaf people send each other videos online, they just use written English because it’s insanely easier and faster for everyone.
A decent amount of deaf people don’t speak English so wouldn’t be using written English. Schools that teach both are actually called dual language schools
Deaf people that can’t hear at all, still read and write, please stop speaking for a lifestyle you don’t know anything about.
😂 I’m deaf you numpty. There’s entire deaf communities that don’t read or write english. It’s actually a hotly debated topic as some think kids shouldn’t be forced to learn both.
Only in 'murica (and the anglosphere) could people think that learning more languages could possibly be a bad thing…
I’m not American but it’s suggested that learning a sign language and a ‘spoken’ language at the same time can slow the acquisition of both.
We see it in kids with two ‘spoken’ languages too but I believe to a lesser extent.
If I had a deaf kid I would teach them both but I understand the choices of parents that don’t do that.
And they’d have no idea what ASL was…
So what’s your point?
Not even every English speaking country uses ASL, and it’s different in different regions even in America.
You’ve got confused. A lot of deaf people speak ASL, BSL, AUSLAN etc exclusively. They don’t speak English. Speaking both is bilingual.
Who’s talking about speaking?
We’re talking about reading/writing/typing…
I would be insanely surprised if someone used American/British/Australian sign language yet didn’t know a single written language. Especially not the one used in their geographical location
This explains why a fair amount of deaf people don’t use written language.
It’s also simpler, faster, and more accurate to have a live translator than having some one type.
