This study investigated the language used in a selection of films containing audio description and developed a set of definitions that allow productions containing it to be more fully defined, measured, and compared. It also highlights some challenging questions related to audio description as a discursive practice and provides a basis for future study of this unique use of language.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Foundation for the Blind. (1991). A picture is worth a thousand words for blind and visually impaired persons too: An introduction to audiodescription [Brochure]. New York: AFB Press.
2.
BarthesR. (1957). Mythologies.London: Jonathan Cape.
3.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
ChafeW. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
FranzoniD. H. (Producer), & ScottR. (Director) (2000). Gladiator [Motion picture]. Glendale and Hollywood, CA: DreamWorks Pictures and Universal Pictures. (Audio description by Descriptive Video Service.)
6.
FrazierG. M. (1975). The autobiography of Miss Jane Pitman: An all-audio adaptation of the teleplay for the blind and visually handicapped. Unpublished master's thesis, San Francisco State University.
7.
HallidayM. A. (1978). Language as a social semiotic.Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
8.
HallidayM. A. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar.New York: Arnold.
9.
HarrisZ. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
JacksonM. (Director). (1991). L.A. story [Motion picture]. Culver City, CA: Artisan Entertainment. (Audio description by Descriptive Video Service.)
11.
KirchnerC., & SchmeidlerE. (2001). Adding audio description: Does it make a difference?Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 197–212.
12.
LemkeJ. (1998). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. In FraserB., & TobinK., (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1175–1189). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
13.
LevinsonS. (1983). Pragmatics.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
LucasC. (1989). The sociolinguistics of the deaf community.New York: Academic Press.
15.
MetzgerM. (1999). Sign language interpreting: Deconstructing the myth of neutrality.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
16.
National Park Service (Producer/Director). (2000). The gift of Acadia [Videotape]. Washington, DC: National Park Service. (Audio description by Metropolitan Washington Ear.)
17.
OchsE. (1979). Transcription as theory. In OchsE., & SchiefflinB. (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic Press.
18.
PackerJ. (1996). Video description in North America. In BergerD. (Ed.), New technologies in the education of the visually handicapped: Proceedings of a conference held in France, June 10–11 (pp. 103–107). Montrouge, France: John Libbey Eurotext.
19.
PackerJ, & KirchnerC. (1997). Who's watching? A profile of the blind and visually impaired audience for television and video.New York: Information Center, American Foundation for the Blind.
20.
PietyP. (2003). Audio description, a visual assistive discourse: An investigation into language used to provide the visually disabled access to information in electronic texts. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
21.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language.New York: HarperCollins.
22.
SchankR. C., & AbelsonR. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
SchiffrinD. (1994). Approaches to discourse.Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
24.
SelznickD. O. (Producer), & WellmanW. (Director) (1937). A star is born [Motion picture]. United States: Selznick International. (Audio description by Narrative Television Network.)
25.
SnyderJ. (2002). Fundamentals of audio description.Tacoma Park, MD: Audio Description Associates.
26.
TannenD. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse.New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
TannenD. (1993). What's in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In TannenD. (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 14–54). New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
TurnerJ. M. (1998). Some characteristics of audio description and the corresponding moving image. Information Today, 35, 108–117.
29.
ValliC., & LucasC. (2001). Sociolinguistic variation in ASL.Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
30.
WarrenD. H. (1994). Blindness and children: An individual differences approach.New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
WyverS. R., MarkhamR., & HlavacekS. (2000). Inferences and word associations of children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 204–217.
