Skip Navigation


Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on July 21, 2005
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2005 10(4):402-416; doi:10.1093/deafed/eni038
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/4/402    most recent
eni038v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schilperoord, J.
Right arrow Articles by van Son, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schilperoord, J.
Right arrow Articles by van Son, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Empirical Articles

Nonverbatim Captioning in Dutch Television Programs: A Text Linguistic Approach

Joost Schilperoord

Tilburg University

Vanja de Groot and Nic van Son

Viataal

In the Netherlands, as in most other European countries, closed captions for the deaf summarize texts rather than render them verbatim. Caption editors argue that in this way television viewers have enough time to both read the text and watch the program. They also claim that the meaning of the original message is properly conveyed. However, many deaf people demand verbatim subtitles so that they have full access to all original information. They claim that vital information is withheld from them as a result of the summarizing process. Linguistic research was conducted in order (a) to identify the type of information that is left out of captioned texts and (b) to determine the effects of nonverbatim captioning on the meaning of the text. The differences between spoken and captioned texts were analyzed on the basis of on a model of coherence relations in discourse. One prominent finding is that summarizing affects coherence relations, making them less explicit and altering the implied meaning.

1 According to information received by a staff member of the caption department of the Dutch Public Broadcasting Organisation, the exact number of captioned programs in 2003 was 15,644; in the first 4 months of 2004 this amounted to 7,138 programs.

2 Research by Jensema, McCann, and Ramsey (1996) showed that, overall, 95% of what is said is put into captions.

Correspondence should be sent to Joost Schilperoord, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands (e-mail: j.schilperoord{at}uvt.nl).

Received May 21, 2004; revised November 30, 2004; accepted January 11, 2005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.