- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Stay at Home Moms
susanmosley
member
about signing with babies
susanmosley
member
So, I have made it clear on the bump multiple times that signing with babies is so not for me....in fact, I think it is really silly. And I was pretty uppity about it. But I am trying to drop the ego and consider other perspectives...and the fact that I could be wrong.
But I keep getting stuck on this thought:
By teaching little humans to sign, are we negatively affecting another part of their development? Like patience, problem solving, time to develop other areas, creativity, natural progression of motor development, etc.
MAYBE signing makes kids test better on standardized IQ tests 10 years into the future. MAYBE signing kids speak earlier (maybe not). MAYBE they have better vocabularies and use longer sentences. MAYBE they are not frustrated. MAYBE their caregiver knows exactly what they want.
But is there a chance that interfering with the natural progression of human development is taking away from other skills that the child would compensate with had he not been taught an alternative means of communication prior to the time verbal language typically emerges? - I'm thinking social-emotional development, creating their own effective nonverbal skills, attentional skills - having to stay focused longer on goal to get message across, working through emotions/feelings - learning to work through the frustration and keep trying new tactics to get over obstacles, etc.?
If anyone has an opinion on this topic, I would love to read it!
This discussion has been closed.
Re: about signing with babies
I think you bring up some great points. I did not pursue signing with our son and he was a bit of a late talker (within the range of normal though) and still, so far so good. The only sign I taught him was "more" and that was useful when he wasn't talking yet but wanted more food, or to be picked up or something.
In my opinion, everything in moderation. That goes for signing too. I think some can be helpful but it seems like if you use it extensively maybe its possible you could be creating some of the things you mention above. But honestly, I am not really educated on child development and haven't done any real research on baby signing, so I could be completely wrong! I went with my gut on this one and we skipped the signing classes (tons of moms in my moms club use it and one teaches the classes). I am fine with our communication progress to this point and our son is quite chatty now so its all good.
It's so hard for me to remember back to when DS wasn't talking! Anyway, I taught him "milk" which he expanded to mean any sort of drink, "please" , "more", and he made his own sign for "pacifier". It was SOOOOOO helpful for me to be able to know exactly what he wanted and when.
Of course, there's no way to know how he would have developed without knowing sign. He seemed to follow the normal progression with speech and hit all the milestones at the "right" times. He talks up a storm now. I always viewed signing as a way to help DS communicate with me when he couldn't do it with speech. He would rarely get frustrated because he could just tell me what he needed. I don't think it inhibited his speech at all, although I can say that for "please" even now he tends to try the sign first, then says "peeeeeeeeese!!".
It worked well for us, but do what you feel comfortable with! It certainly doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. We certainly didn't teach him every sign in the baby sign language book!
Hmmm. Well, I guess I don't see it as "interfering with the natural progression of human development," and I don't understand why you would, either. My son makes a very clear "gimme" sign with his hand when he wants something. He makes a chopping gesture with both hands when he's done or doesn't want something. He holds him arms over his head when he wants us to pick him up, and has various signs for various other things. None of this was taught to him, it's something he naturally developed in order to communicate more effectively. How is it that signing is any different? It's not like speech develops independently, it's also taught. Is that interfering with the natural progression of human development? Why would fostering communication skills in any form negatively affect aything else?
I didn't sign with either of my kids because I felt like I communicated with them just fine as it was and I felt foolish when my MIL tried to get me to make big exaggerated hand gestures to my sons while saying "ALL DONE???? ALL DONE???" in this idotically loud voice. I have no opinion on whether signing is beneficial, I haven't looked into it that closely. I certainly can't see how it could be detrimental in any way. It's just another form of communication.
That is my point. "Naturally," using gestures to communicate comes from the inside out - some kind of drive or motivation. Learning signing is from the outside in. I think that makes a big difference. Instead of figuring out an effective means of communication on their own, they are handed a solution. I think that has faults.
The only sign my children will learn from me is the one when someone cuts me off on the road! LOL just kidding.
I don't do the whole sign language thing. I know a little bit from when I worked in cust. ser. and we had a lady who signed and I picked up a little from her (I was the only one patient enough with her- which is scary bc I have little patience!)
I don't really have an opinion really if it helps or hinders the child. I think it really depends on the individual child.
Its like how some children do well in bilingual households with picking up both languages but then some children it causes confusion and delays (seen both happen in my DH's family.)
But for many many years, speech has emerged around 1 year of age - as a result of imitation, not direct teaching. I suppose one could argue that signing is acquired via imitation also. But it's not the same.
I don't know the answer, that is why I am seeking discussion on this.
I think about the skills/abilities necessary to compensate the gap between having thoughts, feelings, and emotions you want to share and not the speech and language abilities to do so. I think there is a lot of important stuff going on between 6 months and 12 months that prepare the human for the next step - talking. I don't really think we should throw a wrench into that time...let things evolve the way they naturally do.
I think we may possibly be bailing kids out by giving them signs THUS not giving them the opportunities they would otherwise have to navigate though these situations.
I know I am in the minority. and I really know I will never be able to get my thoughts about this in words.
thanks for the replies.
There is no "big deal" - I am just sharing my thoughts on a topic I am quite interested in.
If a child is deaf, ASL would be his first language - the one he is engulfed in each and every day - NOT a few words here (like we do with hearing and typically developing infants using ASL). So he would learn to sign with the same patterns/modalities as a hearing child would develop speech. But also, in so many ways is this a completely different situation. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
Again, I am just interested in this and looking for opinions. The research shows that signing with babies is just great. I am just considering the other side.
DD learned some basic signs... more and all done. It definitely helped decrease her frustration as she didn't really start talking until 18m. Her vocabulary is now huge and she's using 5-6 word sentences (almost 26m). Everyone always compliments her in terms of her social skills, so she's not lacing there.
I don't understand why you assume teaching a child some alternative communication will be detrimental to other areas.
Ditto Teach- we used basic signs with Gisele before she was more verbal. It greatly decreased frustration and made it a lot easier on me that she could communicate basic needs (more, drink, etc). I don't think it was detrimental at all to her. Whenever I signed i verbally said the word and she connected the two.
Think about this: how many signs do adults use in day to day life. I just look at it as another form of body language. Example: waving someone across the street when you are yielding to them while driving, motioning 'that is enough' when someone is filling a glass/coffee cup, patting your lap when calling a pet or your child to come sit down etc. We use 'signs' all the time and mostly unconsciously-
So I guess a side question: How do you feel about introducing a second language into a child's 'education' ? When do you think it would be (if at all) most beneficial? Because I really don't see signing any different than another kind of language (be it baby signing or full on ASL)
There are TONS of studies that point to the the educational benefits of introducing a second language (french- spanish- whatever) younger in life vs when you are in high school and are more tend to be 'required' to take it. Both my DH and I grew up in dual language households (and plan to do the same with Gisele) and both of us completely agree that it has only benefited us. DH speaks four language (granted he was a trained Korean linguist/intellegence officer in the military) ~ DH's first language at home was French where it was solely spoken (he didn't learn English until grade school)- When he went into the military he spent 2 years (365 days a year- 10/hrs a day) learning Korean a language that has a 70% fail rate at the military language defense school in CA--- he said that he was DEFINITELY at an advantage to succeed because learning a language just came more naturally to him.
I know that was a total tangent- but just to bring up a different perspective- to your thoughts.
What exactly makes you think that teaching sign is detrimental to other areas of learning? I am naturally curious
First I wanted to say I am a lurker and hope I don't offend anyone by chiming in this message.
I am deaf though I did not learn proper American Sign Language until I was much older. Prior to that, we used made up signs to get by.
I think teaching "baby signs" is only as effective as how well the one teaching understands the concept of baby signs. It is about conveying concepts before the ability to speak. Sometimes speaking alone is not clear enough (After all English is one of the hardest language to learn as far as concepts), If one don't understand, then it becomes the "blind leading the blind" sort of thing.
When I teach others how to use American Sign Language, others (adults) in the beginning can't help but try to match the signs with the English vocabulary which is a bad thing to do because it is a very different language and totally weakens the message. ASL has a totally different base/grammar setup than English.
From what I have seen and read, babies who learn the concepts of certain actions or items have an easier time matching spoken words with the appropriate action/thing when they are ready to talk. I do strongly encourage baby sings if it is done in the right way/intention.
Because I am deaf, I will not be teaching "Baby Signs" to my LO but rather the true American Sign Language. I think many think baby signs and American Sign Language is the same thing but in fact they are not and sign languages are not codes for English. My husband is hearing and I do speak very clear so the little one will have the best of both languages.
I think you're taking a rather narrow view of language here, and I think the examples of waving and clapping and hugging as signs are good ones. How is it different if my child "invents" a gesture that I recognize has meaning for her vs. my showing her a gesture that likewise has meaning and that we both understand. My DD made up a few signs that we continued to use, and we taught her a few of the baby signs. We weren't hardcore about it or anything, but I did find them helpful both on their own and as reinforcement of spoken language when her pronunciation wasn't as good.
Thanks for the discussion. This is exactly why I posted. I appreciate the responses.
Children of hearing impaired parents who sign use sign from an early age and develp remarkably well. In fact I have a good friend in this situation, his ex-wife is deaf and their little boy is 11 (raised by the dad w/o mom) and he's always signed. He picked it up and he's one of the smartest and mature kids I know.
I think there is no harm to it if you want to use it. If not don't.
I get what you're saying. However, I disagree. Expressive language, or lack of, is not the only way to develop patience, problem solving, etc. Gesticulating comes naturally, sign language will not hinder that. As other posters have stated, people naturally gesticulate and have nonverbal communicate.
Research indicates that the speech mechanism is not strong enough to produce spoken language, but the brain is capable of creating/understanding language. I think teaching sign language to an infant/toddler is akin to strategies to help an infant/toddler learn to stand or walk. With your argument for not teaching signs, we shouldn't help them learn to walk, do other things, because we are depriving them of the opportunity to acquire all of the other things that go into learning that skill (emotions, etc).
And, not all children who are deaf/hard of hearing grow up in homes where everyone signs. I think it's something like 90% of deaf/hoh children are born to hearing parents. And many, many, many parents do not learn how to sign. I won't even go into that topic. But from seeing what I have seen, I fully support providing children with the tools for successful communication as early as possible.
Interesting topic!
I like this.
DS has signed since he was 8 months old. It has been absolutely wonderful for us. I love that I have know what he wants (milk, eat, bath, bubbles, water, dog, come here, nap, etc). And his speech has been developing normally as well. He's saying lots of words.
I studied cell biology, but nothing really about neurons, so this may not be exactly right, but I thought when neuron pathways were used, they become more sensitive and developed in the brain, making "maps" all over the brain. Neuron pathways that are not used, wither off or die after awhile. So to me, I would think that incorporating sign language, along with saying the word, pointing to the object, etc, would use the neuron pathways more often, which would be a benefit to the child.
Also, wouldn't signing be a part of problem solving? A frustrated child wants to get across that he wants milk. He cries, tries to grab the milk, or figures out that he can sign. I would think the moment he realizes he can sign, the same light bulb would go off in his head that he "solved the problem," just as if he figured out some other way to get across to his mom that he wanted the milk.
And just to be clear, I am not saying children who don't sign are missing out, I'm just theorizing with you on the effects of signing. Cool topic.