I assume there must be a reason why sign language is superior but I genuinely don’t know why.

  • Gabu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not deaf/HOH, but I’ve watched some signed translations out of curiosity and even to me it seems different. They do things like indicating the feeling of music, matching their facial expressions to the characters’, and sometimes forgoing a direct translation to confer the mood of a phrase.

      Even when you’re watching a subbed movie/show, you have the emotion of the voice performance to influence how you read the words. I imagine it’s the same for signed VS subbed translations (to anyone who signs, please correct me if I’m wrong).