(Inspired by another thread bemoaning dialogue being unintelligible at the cinema)
How many of us here use closed captioning when watching films and television in our native language when at home? My wife used to do this because she’s an early riser and would watch television at a low volume out of respect for those of us still asleep. Now she prefers to watch this way at normal volumes. I’m wondering if watching programs with this feature enabled is making our ears lazy. Yes, I have zero evidence either way, I’ve just noticed an increasing amount of complaints about dialogue intelligibility at the cinema and wondering about the possible culprit.
How many of us here use closed captioning when watching films and television in our native language when at home? My wife used to do this because she’s an early riser and would watch television at a low volume out of respect for those of us still asleep. Now she prefers to watch this way at normal volumes. I’m wondering if watching programs with this feature enabled is making our ears lazy. Yes, I have zero evidence either way, I’ve just noticed an increasing amount of complaints about dialogue intelligibility at the cinema and wondering about the possible culprit.
Last edited:
My wife likes to do this as well. I only flip them on if the accents are strong e.g. British or if it's a Christopher Nolan film.
I do love the feature on some streaming apps where CC turns on automatically if you replay a segment.
I do love the feature on some streaming apps where CC turns on automatically if you replay a segment.
In our country Belgium (where Dutch and French are the official languages and German a minority language with official status), most foreign movies and tv shows are with close capturing standard activated on tv. But i'm rather fluent in English and French (the big majority of the shows here) and understand German, Italian and Spanish. So i don't need the Dutch (my mothertongue is West-Flemish, a local variation of Dutch) translation of it so i tend not to read it and watch the movie and listen to the dialogues in their orignal language. it's only when it's in a language i don't understand that i read it (which is hard because i'm dyslectic and it goes too fast).
And i know that with a lot of younger Belgians (who are almost all speaking and understanding a few languages) it's like that. If they quote a show, they do it in the original language, not in the translated "subtitles" (like we call it here). Older Belgians tend to need it as they mostly only speak their own languages and got only a very basic knowledge of English and/or French.
And i know that with a lot of younger Belgians (who are almost all speaking and understanding a few languages) it's like that. If they quote a show, they do it in the original language, not in the translated "subtitles" (like we call it here). Older Belgians tend to need it as they mostly only speak their own languages and got only a very basic knowledge of English and/or French.
Fascinating. I like to appreciate cinematography so I find close-captioning rather distracting. Subtitles on the other hand, I regard as a necessary evil as I watch lots of foreign film and like most US citizens, only speak English. I’m constantly impressed with the rest of the world’s habit of multi-lingual fluency. Several years ago I watched the British series Cracker and had to turn on captioning/subtitles for that!
Wel, that is because most of our countries are not single language countries in Europe. France has only one official language (standard French) but de facto a big part of the population talks other languages (South-Flemish (Dutch dialect) in the upper north arround Lille, Rheinlandisch (German dialect) in the Rhein valley and surroundings, Picard & Chti'mi in the historic region of Picardia and french (southern) Hainaut, Occitan (close to itaian) in the Provence & Monacco, Aquitan (close to Catalan) & Baskish in the Pyrinee region, Bretonnic Gaelic in Bretagne, ...) are all local languages nativly spoken in France, and the standard French (the Parisian dialect) is only dominant since a few centuries... In the Netherlands you have standard Dutch, (Hollands) but in the north they speak Frissian historically (and still do in a large part) and in the south-east (arround Maastricht) they speak Limburgs (a dialect very close to German). Germany has Sorbian (Slavic), Frissian and Danish minorities that are historically living there since forever and speak their own language.
And most countries, if not all in Europe are like that. And by that most people already know 2 languages from start, the local language (a dialect or a different language) and the standard language of their country. And as most countries are small, they often know the language of the nearest country also a bit, just like English is more and more general known all over Europe now.
It's rare in the world that there is a region that big as the USA where they speak only one language. And even in the USA a big part of the southern states have big Spanish speaking communities also, from historical origin (parts that were taking from Mexico) or by immigration in the last 100 years... Americans like to ignore that, but they are there. Just like the old german dialect speaking Amish community in Pennsylvania and the on old-french based Cajun speaking minorities in Louisiana arround Lafayette...
In the UK, we have had it since 1974, so I'm not sure that correlates well with intelligibility or lack of in films
Brian
Brian
Good points Waxx. The United States has more people who primarily speak Spanish than Spain does now. I was recently in Oaxaca, MX and was having a conversation with a bartender who was interested in visiting the US. I urged him to visit New Orleans, LA for similar cultural reasons as you mention above.
As an aside, on my way through customs into Holland a couple years back, the agent looking at my passport remarked that I had a nice Dutch surname (Brinkman). My initial thought was to tell her the truth that my father had simply took the name of his step father and so there is no blood relation to the name. Then it occurred to me that my father’s mother’s maiden name is Holland which is all the more ironic. I’m Pennsylvania Dutch by blood and adoption and Irish on the other side, which perhaps explains my fondness for rye whiskey.
As an aside, on my way through customs into Holland a couple years back, the agent looking at my passport remarked that I had a nice Dutch surname (Brinkman). My initial thought was to tell her the truth that my father had simply took the name of his step father and so there is no blood relation to the name. Then it occurred to me that my father’s mother’s maiden name is Holland which is all the more ironic. I’m Pennsylvania Dutch by blood and adoption and Irish on the other side, which perhaps explains my fondness for rye whiskey.
Last edited:
i don’t disagree that listening too loud with headphones, going to loud concerts and industrial noise are leading causes for hearing loss. I’m speaking more to the specific complaint that dialogue is unintelligible. A center channel dedicated to dialogue is more ubiquitous now than at any other time, yet it seems that it is not enough for many people. Trained reliance on closed captioning is just my own speculation as to why.
I actually find the screen-words-simultaneous-with-dialog to be relaxing. For me it seems to take more to process the spoken word, by first filtering that out from whatever else is going on - the screen dialog verifies what I think was said and consequently, stress drops. Sometimes it's easier for me to just read the dialog, so that's what I do, letting the auditory speech processing system coast.
Now I suppose if you did that all the time then yes, it may make your "ears weak". But it's actually a whole system weakening, not just your ears - those being the sound pickup part.
Now I suppose if you did that all the time then yes, it may make your "ears weak". But it's actually a whole system weakening, not just your ears - those being the sound pickup part.
Interesting, I’m the opposite; I find the text a distraction from the visuals and a source of aggravation. Beautifully shot foreign (to me) films I have to watch multiple times because I will elect to opt out of reading the subtitles.
One typically causes the other. Who are the ones doing the complaining? Claiming an over all deficiency in signal quality requires technical data.
I already agree that hearing loss and unintelligibility are correlated and I already stated that I don’t know of any studies that might shed some light on causation, or even if there is an actual issue at all. This thread is purely speculative at this point and based off anecdotal observation. The mods can move it to the lounge if that is more appropriate.
As a hearing impaired person I would argue that weak ears make closed captioning more prevalent, not the other way around. IMHO the prevalence today of young people listening via earbuds will just push the trend further. In order to have the TV at a volume level that is comfortable for my better hearing wife the captions are a necessity.
Couldn't it be an issue with compression ( dynamic not data)? When i switched (back) to vinyl were compression is less than on digital format it was easier to understand english lyrics.
I have sometime issue to understand my own native language on some radio station which are over compressed all the time ( first syndrom of this is sss which are always upfront and fatiguing).
I have sometime issue to understand my own native language on some radio station which are over compressed all the time ( first syndrom of this is sss which are always upfront and fatiguing).
So German?
As for the topic. It's like saying watching someones lips whilst they talk will turn your brain to mush. The human brain is very good at using all inputs available to make sense of something. So I'd say no harm done. Just have a phone call with someone once in a while to keep things humming along 😀
Not necesairly, the expression is about low-german (Nederdietsch) speaking europeans, and dutch is a form of low german, just like Rheinlandisch used to be and Letzenburgs (the language of Luxembourgh) largely still is (altough heavy influenced by high german). A part of them come from what is now Germany, but also from the Netherlands and northern Belgium (the dutch speaking part now called Flanders).
Low German is basicly the germanic languages that decent from old Frankish, old Saxon, old Anlish and old Frissian and is contrasting with high german (hoch deutsch) that decents from Bavarian, Thurian and Alamanisch and some more. High german is now modern mainstream German like spoken in Germany, Switzerland and Austria). The low German in northern and western modern Germany dissapeared only in the last few centuries, after the Amish and so went to the US. That is why their language, based on old low german is perfectly understandable for me and most speakers of Dutch or Frissian (the only two remaining low-german languages). English is partly based on low german also, but heavy mixed with nordic (Danelaw or old Danish) german and the old celtic languages of the UK (Brittonic Gaelic, Pictic, old Scottish) and Latin.
But we are getting far of topic now...