Babies: 0 - 3 Months

Will you teach your baby sign language?

nft.
Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml

Re: Will you teach your baby sign language?

  • Some signs yes

    Kerri

  • Loading the player...
  • I bought DH Baby Signs for xmas, so, yes!
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
    Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • yes, I was with an 18 month old a few months ago and it was AMAZING! I was sold!
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • Yes.  They say it prevents a lot of frustration for everyone.  Also, I am going to use ASL so that later, he can hopefully have a second language.
  • The daycare DD will be going to (Goddard School) does infant sign language with them.  I will continue it at home and probably teach her some American Sign Language.  I think it is a great way for them to communicate needs before they can talk (like more, etc.) and I think knowing ASL is a great skill to have later in life. 
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
  • I know it's good, I have heard of friends kids that don't cry at all because they can communicate with them.

    However, I have a friend that has an 18 month old and he HARDLY talks, he just signs.  If you didn't know him you would think he actually might be deaf.  I don't think it's good that he doesn't talk at all and uses that strictly.

  • No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.
  • Yes. His daycare provider teaches all the babies and I know American Sign Language. So he will learn it both places. Her 16 month old can't talk but signs all the time.
  • Absolutely! But I am an American Sign Language teacher, so I am very excited to teach her. I find myself signing to her quite a bit already, and she's only 8 weeks old. (I also have tendencies to sign to anyone when I'm in a noisy place or trying to be very quiet. haha) She probably won't sign back until she is about 6 months old, but some babies have been able to sign sooner. My friend in Deaf Ed told me she has seen babies sign as young as around 4 months old. Joseph Garcia's book is great (just the book, not the 'kit', and if you Google ASL Browser, a great website will come up that shows videos of how to make a sign.  If you Google ASL Lifeprint, a free ASL online curriculum will come up. A PhD candidate wanted to see if you could teach ASL online and developed this site. It's good for adults who want to learn ASL. 

    Off my tangent! :-)

  • We are using ASL too, and our 5 month old just started signing "milk" while he is nursing.  It is amazing. 
    Pregnancy Ticker Baby Birthday Ticker Ticker
  • In response to the 'hinders language' argument: ASL is a real language, and possess all of the features that makes a spoken language a language. Whether or not the child is speaking or signing is irrelevant because the brain is creating/processing language.  So language isn't delayed, but speech production may not be their first choice because they prefer signing. However, if the child is only using signs and not producing speech, a speech-language pathologist should be consulted for an evaluation.  If the child possess more words in ASL, then of course they will sign more than speak. If you fear the child not speaking because of signing, you could always just teach them 5-10 signs (eat, poop, milk, etc) for basic communication needs.

    I am not familiar with what the Goddard School teaches, but if you can, verifty which signs they are using: do they may up their own? Is there a book their staff follows (Garcia's book, someone else's)? Is it actually ASL signs?  If they follow Baby Signs, which is a modified ASL sign (and unnecessary in reality, but I understand the theory behind it) and you teach an actual ASL sign, there could be some frustration and confusion.

    I am working towards teaching ASL to children and infants, it's just so fascinating! And to all the people who think ASL is useful in the future or want to see their child pursue it as a second language: yah!

  • I definitely will trry sign language. I hear there is less frustration with your child who is still learning to find ways to communicate their needs. I'm all for trying to make it easier to communicate with DS.
  • imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    I have a 2 year old nephew that only says a handful of words (he doesn't sign) and it is super frustrating for everyone involved.  Even if they aren't talking, they are still communicating when they are signing. I guess my point is that some kids talk later than others...I personally would like DS to be able to communicate, regardless of when he verbally expresses himself.

  • Definitely yes. My SIL and her husband are both hearing impaired, and they sign with their children. The 2-year-old speaks and signs what he says to us.

    Learning another language is invaluable, in my opinion, even if we're only able to teach her a little bit because of our limited knowledge.

    image
    My silly Lily is almost 4. BabyFruit Ticker
  • imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

  • imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

     

    this. 100%. my (now)  2 y/o said "more" (for instance) when she was a baby bc that is what I taught her. I have no reason to teach her a hand sign when she was fully capable of saying the word. I have seen children who just sign and refuse to speak. no thanks.

  • imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

     

    Because you are teaching them that it is acceptable to use a hand gesture instead of learning to speak the word. it takes a lot of time for children to then have to gear over and realize that the hand symbol for snack isn't going to cut it anymore and that DC needs to say 'can i have a snack?" or just "snack?"

    baby signs are interesting for first time moms bc they feel "OMG i will be able to communicate with my baby so early!!" but it really is not the case all of the time. I knew/know exactly what my child was/is saying without her even knowing the proper words for some things.
     

  • Wow...did I get quoted enough here? LOL.

    I wasn't saying it's bad for everyone...just stating my experience with it. My seventeen month old and I do just fine communicating without signs. After he learns that spoken language is his primary language, we may do signs. We may do Spanish. We may do French. But right now, we're working on spoken English. Not a big deal. I'm not saying signing is bad at all, just not for us right now.

  • imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

     

     

    Because you are teaching them that it is acceptable to use a hand gesture instead of learning to speak the word. it takes a lot of time for children to then have to gear over and realize that the hand symbol for snack isn't going to cut it anymore and that DC needs to say 'can i have a snack?" or just "snack?"

    baby signs are interesting for first time moms bc they feel "OMG i will be able to communicate with my baby so early!!" but it really is not the case all of the time. I knew/know exactly what my child was/is saying without her even knowing the proper words for some things.
     

    Again, that wasn't my friend's experience.  When it came time for her daughter to develop language, she no longer used the sign for more or milk or whatever.  She weeded it out just like you'd weed out them pointing for something or grunting, etc.

  • imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

    Again, that wasn't my friend's experience.  When it came time for her daughter to develop language, she no longer used the sign for more or milk or whatever.  She weeded it out just like you'd weed out them pointing for something or grunting, etc.

     

    lol I guess I see no reason not to teach the child a word instead of a sign. it takes just as much time/effort. 

  • imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

    Again, that wasn't my friend's experience.  When it came time for her daughter to develop language, she no longer used the sign for more or milk or whatever.  She weeded it out just like you'd weed out them pointing for something or grunting, etc.

     

    lol I guess I see no reason not to teach the child a word instead of a sign. it takes just as much time/effort. 

    Because her daughter was then able to specify her need *before she was talking.  So instead of just crying, she was able to sign for milk and we knew it wasn't that she was wet or tired or scared.  Her words came at the normal rate later.  No harm done.

  • imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

    Again, that wasn't my friend's experience.  When it came time for her daughter to develop language, she no longer used the sign for more or milk or whatever.  She weeded it out just like you'd weed out them pointing for something or grunting, etc.

     

    lol I guess I see no reason not to teach the child a word instead of a sign. it takes just as much time/effort. 

    Because her daughter was then able to specify her need *before she was talking.  So instead of just crying, she was able to sign for milk and we knew it wasn't that she was wet or tired or scared.  Her words came at the normal rate later.  No harm done.

     

    lol ok. well let us all know how it goes with your little one. everyone wants to try the newest thing.

    and "normal rate" for words is different for everyone. I would love to see 100 babies - 50 with signs and 50 w/o and see who was talking "normally" first.
     

  • imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:
    imagepunkfiction:
    imageEchowysp:

    imageLittleMamaB:
    No. I know "they" say it doesn't hinder language development, but I've seen otherwise. The few children that I've known that have been taught to sign absolutely refused to say the words they were signing. It's just not for us as far as infants go. Now, once they learn to speak well, I'm all for it.

    Not so for my friend's daughter.  She ended up being quite the chatterbug.  It really helped her communicate her needs when she was little.  I don't see how learning a handful of signs will hinder anything when they are older.

    Again, that wasn't my friend's experience.  When it came time for her daughter to develop language, she no longer used the sign for more or milk or whatever.  She weeded it out just like you'd weed out them pointing for something or grunting, etc.

     

    lol I guess I see no reason not to teach the child a word instead of a sign. it takes just as much time/effort. 

    Because her daughter was then able to specify her need *before she was talking.  So instead of just crying, she was able to sign for milk and we knew it wasn't that she was wet or tired or scared.  Her words came at the normal rate later.  No harm done.

     

    lol ok. well let us all know how it goes with your little one. everyone wants to try the newest thing.

    and "normal rate" for words is different for everyone. I would love to see 100 babies - 50 with signs and 50 w/o and see who was talking "normally" first.
     

    I never said I was going to try it. What's it to you if someone does? 

  • "what's it to you" seems to be the common response on this board.

     

    and I was just stating that people shouldn't get their hopes up. I have seen a lot of mom friends frustrated bc they have tried to teach their baby ASL and still they can't communicate with their baby like they thought they could.  

  • No way. I'm all for letting kids be kids. I saw on "The Doctors" the other day about babies learning to read. Seriously, what's wrong with kids learning these things when they go to school when 4 or 5?
  • imageSherriberry:
    No way. I'm all for letting kids be kids. I saw on "The Doctors" the other day about babies learning to read. Seriously, what's wrong with kids learning these things when they go to school when 4 or 5?

    I like you...

This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards
"
"