6 ms·

I can't verify this claim, however I would guess that the "and hard-of-hearing" part is a big factor. I have a suspicion that the number of people we would refe

I can't verify this claim, however I would guess that the "and hard-of-hearing" part is a big factor. I have a suspicion that the number of people we would refer to as deaf is dwarfed by the number of people who are 'hard-of-hearing'. Additionally the actual quote only claims that this percentage of people are not fluent. I would guess the most people born without the ability to hear have learned to sign fluently, I would likewise guess that most people who become even severely hard-of-hearing later in life get by on closed-captions, lip-reading, and basic knowledge of signs.

redthrowaway 15y ago
The problem with sign language is that it doesn't do you any good unless everyone else speaks it, as well. Sure, there might be special services for the deaf where they can expect to be able to converse with someone in ASL, but for the vast majority of their interactions they will be dealing with people who don't know it. It then becomes something of limited use. It's as if there were a programming language that greatly improved your productivity, but was only available for SPARC boxes running Solaris. Sure, the few times you were able to use such a system, it would be great. But how many programmers would bother to learn a language that they would use so infrequently?
- kingnothing 15y ago
  If the hypothetical language actually were that much "better" than existing languages, hackers would flock to it in droves. SPARC boxes running Solaris would quickly become the new AWS boxes running nginx.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Right, and perhaps it's a poor example. That was, in fact, the first counterargument that I thought of when I wrote that comment. I was trying to think of something that would be intuitive for the audience here, and perhaps in pursuing that goal I made a poor analogy. The point is, ASL must be a language first, and an aid for the disabled second. On that point, it fails. The goal of a language is to enable communication; if less than 1% of people you are likely to interact with are capable of communicating in that language then it is of limited utility. People who have normal hearing are generally not going to learn ASL, as the value proposition just isn't strong enough. Because of that, even people who have hearing problems might not be incentivized to learn it, for the same reason: it just might not be that useful. Now, as with any group, a shared language leads to shared culture and a sense of belonging. That, in and of itself, will make ASL attractive to many people. That's fine. It fails at its intended use as a primary means of communication however, as it just doesn't let you communicate with that many people. This, I think, is why many deaf people also learn to lipread: it allows for communication outside of the (relatively) small deaf community.
  - regularfry 15y ago
    Canonical counterexample: Symbolics Lisp Machines.
ploversteno 15y ago
Spot on. ASL is a really beautiful language, but it's incredibly difficult to learn, partly because its grammar is spacial rather than linear, which can be a real mindbending experience for speakers of oral languages. I've been learning it for three years, and I'm still only conversational; nowhere near fluent.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The problem with sign language is that it doesn't do you any good unless everyone else speaks it, as well. Sure, there might be special services for the deaf where they can expect to be able to converse with someone in ASL, but for the vast majority of their interactions they will be dealing with people who don't know it. It then becomes something of limited use. It's as if there were a programming language that greatly improved your productivity, but was only available for SPARC boxes running Solaris. Sure, the few times you were able to use such a system, it would be great. But how many programmers would bother to learn a language that they would use so infrequently?

kingnothing 15y ago
If the hypothetical language actually were that much "better" than existing languages, hackers would flock to it in droves. SPARC boxes running Solaris would quickly become the new AWS boxes running nginx.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Right, and perhaps it's a poor example. That was, in fact, the first counterargument that I thought of when I wrote that comment. I was trying to think of something that would be intuitive for the audience here, and perhaps in pursuing that goal I made a poor analogy. The point is, ASL must be a language first, and an aid for the disabled second. On that point, it fails. The goal of a language is to enable communication; if less than 1% of people you are likely to interact with are capable of communicating in that language then it is of limited utility. People who have normal hearing are generally not going to learn ASL, as the value proposition just isn't strong enough. Because of that, even people who have hearing problems might not be incentivized to learn it, for the same reason: it just might not be that useful. Now, as with any group, a shared language leads to shared culture and a sense of belonging. That, in and of itself, will make ASL attractive to many people. That's fine. It fails at its intended use as a primary means of communication however, as it just doesn't let you communicate with that many people. This, I think, is why many deaf people also learn to lipread: it allows for communication outside of the (relatively) small deaf community.
- regularfry 15y ago
  Canonical counterexample: Symbolics Lisp Machines.

ploversteno 15y ago

Spot on. ASL is a really beautiful language, but it's incredibly difficult to learn, partly because its grammar is spacial rather than linear, which can be a real mindbending experience for speakers of oral languages. I've been learning it for three years, and I'm still only conversational; nowhere near fluent.