That's very true. Of course, we always have to ask how effectively one can learn a second language.
It's desirable to expose the child to language earlier. That generally leads to earlier acquisition.
And coming back to the children with a CI: there's not a guarantee that the CI is going to work as well and as quickly as one would like.
Even if you implant a child very early, there is still a time, when you're not signing with them, where they're not receiving any language input.
Even if they might be able to learn sign language later, and learn it effectively, it's still a concern that for those first two years they're not receiving any language input.
We know that that first year is exceptionally important for children's language development.
So being able to have some kind of language that is accessible to them, so sign language, is worth quite a lot.
That's why sign languages in particular are such good choices for that early exposure.
You mentioned earlier what kind of research there might be for children who have cochlear implants, who are learning to sign.
We have a study and other people have studies on children who, for whatever reason, were exposed to very strong sign language input from birth.
And they had their CI a year or two later, and their spoken language development was not hindered by the fact that they signed.
In fact, we feel very strongly that it was probably facilitated by the fact that they signed.
That that's a faciltating, positive effect.
These are very small numbers, so we have to do a lot more research in that area, but really the evidence we see so far doesn't point to them being...
...held back in their spoken language development because of sign language exposure. The opposite is probably true.