But I think geofizz's point is regarding your original claim, that "Talking is hard. Why talk when there's signing? The primary motivation for kids to work on their linguistics is the need to be understood. She doesn't have that need, and so, she's not working on it. It's not a priority."
Yes, and then geofizz supported that point while ostensibly refuting it, via discussion of "successful communication."
Keep in mind, we're not talking about baby signs here. This child has a signing vocabulary of 350 words, and is making up more all the time.
Kids who are developing normally don't need to "work on" acquiring language. It's what their brains are built to do. Expose them to multiple languages, they'll learn them all.
Yes, and the child we're talking about here has clearly learned both languages. That's independent of speech.
Hearing kids who grow up in deaf signing households learn the spoken language of the surrounding community with no problem.
Citation? I think it would be hard to find rigorous studies on families where all adult members of the household are deaf, because how many are there?
Here's some anecdotal information:
http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_a1eea10f-f66f-5a57-a4a3-e6cb7fbf86a9.htmlAnd it backs up my point:
When Frances Beaurivage was a little girl, her family had an unwritten code.
"You spoke with speaking people, and you signed with deaf people."
That's just the way it was.
