NationStates Jolt Archive

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/signlang.htm

I'm developing a research study on this topic, and this was the article that I felt best summed up the idea of baby signs. We teach baby signs to our clients' infants (if they so choose) and I've definitely seen babies as young as 10 months signing several words long before they would be able to say those same words.

What do you think...useful or not? Would you do this with your baby, if you had one of this age?

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/signlang.htm

I'm developing a research study on this topic, and this was the article that I felt best summed up the idea of baby signs. We teach baby signs to our clients' infants (if they so choose) and I've definitely seen babies as young as 10 months signing several words long before they would be able to say those same words.

What do you think...useful or not? Would you do this with your baby, if you had one of this age?
useful in that they learn an extra language early...not so much for communication.

I have a little sister who's two, now. My mother insisted on teaching her baby signs, though personally, I always thought it would slow speech - I mean, if they can communicate without having to talk, where's the incentive?

She still isn't talking much, so she's a little behind - as I feared she would be - however, I will admit, simple things like "milk", "food", and "more" were, and are, helpful. I think it's important to always teach the sounds that go along with the signs. Otherwise, yeah, it's not such a bad idea.

My cousin used this with her kid. She said it works, so yeah I'd it with my kid.. er that did not sound right.. Yes I would teach my kid signlingo.

Not useful.
It’s bound to make the meat tougher.

useful in that they learn an extra language early...not so much for communication.
Incorrect! Theres signs for if the kid wants food, to poop, milk, weed.

I have seen this signing in action!

i dont really see the point. when your kid wants the bottle he'll let you know, its the OTHER stuff that you dont have a clue on. i do remember how great it was when my son could indicate yes or no to questions about what he wanted.

but i guess it depends on what you arent doing with your child in the time you are spending on teaching sign language, what method you use to teach it and whether or not you put pressure on your kid when he turns out to be a bit stupid at it. if you approach it like those parents who do flashcards with their kids then NO, dont do it. if you just add it in as fun while you are doing other fun things with the baby, then fine go for it. just dont expect it to make your baby smarter or more advanced.

Incorrect! Theres signs for if the kid wants food, to poop, milk, weed.

I have seen this signing in action!

Definately haven't seen the weed sign, yet.

But they are rather helpful. Otherwise, it's "Cry #3!! What does Cry #3 mean!?!?!"

Incorrect! Theres signs for if the kid wants food, to poop, milk, weed.

I have seen this signing in action!
aaand that isn't the basis for a language? ASL would be a short step from there.

aaand that isn't the basis for a language? ASL would be a short step from there.
*signs "communication wise"*

Well, here are the advantages, as measured by quite a bit of research:

- an IQ increase that sticks around for at least 8 years
- better long-term ability in math, reasoning, and cognitive spacial ability
- a larger vocabulary, earlier (spoken, that is)
- fewer tantrums and crying
- and parents seem to be pretty happy with it

my kids were speaking in complete sentences by 10 months, so I think it's pretty much a waste of time to try to teach them "signing" when they can just learn to talk, it seems like a waste of energy to me and probably a waste of time for the kid.

I have kids in the class I teach who were taught to "sign" and their verbal skills are way behind, what is the point of spending 6 months teaching them how to sign milk which will only be useful for them for a month or two tops before you expect them to say milk? wouldn't your time be better spent just teaching them to talk?

Two situations that I have seen where it has been useful were:

1. A toddler who has mild autism, and for some reason can't speak, though he understands spoken words quite well. So he uses sign to communicate with others.

2. For people who have EC babies (eliminination communication: babies and toddlers who don't use diapers) it's an easy way for the baby to communicate to the parents that they need to pee or poo.

Otherwise, I personally haven't seen a need for it for my kids.

I’ve seen programs first hand where baby sign language was used. At first I had my doubts, but the more I learned the more I realize that I was gypped as a baby. What it comes down to is that babies have the ability to communicate before they have the ability to communicate vocally. This way, parents can communicate with their children before they can even speak. It’s a really brilliant step in parenting when you think about it. Of course it means the parents have to take the time to learn this new form of communication and teach it to their children, so many won’t take the time, but I think for those that do it will be worthwhile.

I don’t think that this has been in popular use long enough for the babies using it to be in grade school, so I’m not sure what class that Smunkeeville is teaching in (pre-preschool?)

The Bruce

Just be careful with what you teach them...

http://planetfusion.chez-alice.fr/Bebe%20fuck.jpg

I don’t think that this has been in popular use long enough for the babies using it to be in grade school, so I’m not sure what class that Smunkeeville is teaching in (pre-preschool?)



They are 2 year olds, I try very hard not to compare them to my 2 year old, but I have 2 children who were taught to sign and one says 3 words, the other can say about 7, they are very behind, I think that it's because their parents spent too much time trying to teach them to sign and not enough time talking to them, one of them bragged to me that she and her child can go through a whole day without having to talk because he signs so well. Maybe I am just dealing with idiotic parents, but every single child I have ever met that learned "baby sign language" has been behind verbally, then again I have really only ever met about 30, so it's not a huge sample.

I don't have kids, but I would just talk to them normally. I'd try to avoid using different ways of saying the same thing at first though.

But isn't it true that while a baby might not be able to voice their thoughts, they are able to understand way earlier and pick up pretty much everything you say to them?
So, not talking to them - or even worse, talking "baby-talk" to them - messes up their "natural" perception of a language?

(At least that's what I've learned in linguistics class)

I don't have kids, but I would just talk to them normally. I'd try to avoid using different ways of saying the same thing at first though.
I talked to my kids just like I would anyone else, it seems to work out fine for them. I did have to try to remember to use proper names for things at first though, just so that they learn the "right" words first then we could work on other words later. (like saying bottom instead of tushy, and yes I know that bottom isn't the "correct word" but bottom is close enough)

I talked to my kids just like I would anyone else, it seems to work out fine for them. I did have to try to remember to use proper names for things at first though, just so that they learn the "right" words first then we could work on other words later. (like saying bottom instead of tushy, and yes I know that bottom isn't the "correct word" but bottom is close enough)

"Bottom" is informal, but it's not slang. You wouldn't want your kids using the formal terms for thing all the time anyway, I hope.

"Bottom" is informal, but it's not slang. You wouldn't want your kids using the formal terms for thing all the time anyway, I hope.
no, but I have met too many kids who think that they have a "hoo-ha" and then giggle when they say penis, it seems backwards to me, I wanted my kids to learn the words penis and vulva before they got into the weird crap people make up so that they don't have to say penis and vulva. :p

no, but I have met too many kids who think that they have a "hoo-ha" and then giggle when they say penis, it seems backwards to me, I wanted my kids to learn the words penis and vulva before they got into the weird crap people make up so that they don't have to say penis and vulva. :p

Like I said, there's a difference between informal and slang. It makes sense to teach the more formal terms if the alternatives are either obscure, childish or potentially offensive though.

If you talk and sign at the same time to a hearing baby, the baby will babble with their hands and mouth at the same time. Deaf children babble with their hands, hearing children babble with their mouths... and hearing children who are signed and talked to at the same time will do both. I have studied ASL (at OSU), and after seeing all the facts, studies, and having experiences with the deaf community, I have come to the conclusion it can be benefit a hearing child if done correctly. I don't want kids, but if for some strange reason I changed my mind, I would sign and speak to my child every day.