Teaching Your Toddler to Communicate with Sign Language

[BlackHawk]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

I am very passionate about this topic, so I apologize in advanced if this comes off rude.

I find your position on this to be rather ignorant, honestly. I have not seen anyone here claim that using signs makes your children smarter, nor have I met anyone in real life who says such. To allow a child to be frustrated helps no one. Frustration is a part of life, by do you not try to make it easier for them when you can? Do you expect your 2 year old to be able to reach the toilet without your help when they are potty training in order for them to understand frustration? Most people I know give their child a boost. That doesn't make them smarter, it merely aids them. Sign language is as simple as that. It doesn't make them smarter, it gives them yet another tool in order to grow and communicate in our world today.

I don't think teaching your child five or so signs is "hijacking" anything. I know about 10 words in spanish, does that mean to teach them to my child is hijacking that language? Are the only people who should be able to communicate with the Deaf and hearing impaired other deaf and hearing impaired individuals? That to me screams ignorance. One of my greatest memories of teaching at a center was when I actually had a deaf student enrolled. My 2 year olds would go up to him and sign simple signs that they had been taught, and he understood them. He was able to communicate from day one with the other kids in the class and with myself. Without teaching my students the basics in order to remove frustrations, that little boy would have been left out of communication until I could teach the other kids signs.

I also find the fact that you relate that your generation didn't sign as a fact. My grandmother signed with my father. For all that it was worth of my relationship with my parents in the end, it was my father's ability to show me signs that started my love for the language. And my grandmother was born in 1908, and none of her siblings were deaf. I also find the comparison to be lacking. My grandmother also didn't use a car seat for her children, and she herself was never strapped in the car. My father "turned out fine".

Please take the time to learn why things are done and don't decide that just because you didn't have it growing up doesn't mean it doesn't have merit for others.

[Turtle]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

This comment is a whole lot of ignorant. Basically, what BlackHawk said.

But also, no...babies don't learn signs at the same time as they "should" be talking. Babies can typically sign before they can speak, that's why signing is helpful. Or, they can sign words that are harder to say, so signing and speaking come together. Why should I not try to alleviate frustration and help my child communicate if I have to the tools to do so, just because it wasn't a common tool in previous generations? That's silly.

[paganhomeschooler]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

I don't know what generation you are in, but I'm a 30-something, and they taught us basic sign language in school! We had these little pamphlets once a week we used in religion class, and on the back it would always have a small section with a few everyday signs. Things like book, what time is it, banana, please and thank you, etc. Hell, even Fonzie learned sign language!

I was always fascinated with sign language. I read The Story of Helen Keller when I was 7, and I immediately set out to learn finger spelling. The signs at school were always a highlight of my week. Hearing loss also runs in my family, and I like to be prepared. If I ever lose my hearing, at least I'll have basic knowledge.

You never know when you may need a simple sign or when it might just brighten someone's day. My husband used to work with a man who was deaf, and his face always lit up when I'd sign something to him. He was appreciative someone cared enough to try. It is appalling the way deaf people can be treated by hearing-folks. I have never met a person with hearing problems who has seemed offended by the fact I could (marginally) communicate with them. Quite the contrary. They seemed shocked someone would take the time. It's the little things that can sometimes mean the most to people.

I taught my youngest son a few easy signs when he was an infant. I don't think it slowed his abilities. I also don't think it made him smarter. My oldest is a certified genius. She began speaking simple words at 6 months and could hold conversations with adults when she was 18 mo. She was never taught a sign as an infant. My 2nd child barely spoke until she was 3, and no one but basically me could understand her until she was almost 6. I WISH I would have taught her signs. It would have helped the frustration level in our house. When my youngest son came along, I wanted to give him that skill in case he was also a late talker. Thankfully he wasn't, though he doesn't speak well. Even after he started speaking, he would sign from time to time if I couldn't understand him. Children are not stupid. They understand a good bit more than adults usually give them credit for; they just may not be able to express it because that part of them has not become as developed yet. If signing can help bridge that gap, how is that a bad thing? You may want to look up asynchronous development.

[samithemage]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

I have to agree with what others have said, it's not about making kids smarter, but allowing a child a different means of communication. I've been a nanny for 7 years now (which is of course totally different from being a mom), but I have been involved in the day to day life of at least 12 different little ones in that time. With all of the infant/young toddlers that I've watched, we did "baby signs" ie: eat, more, please, thank you, play, all done, etc. Some of them were early talkers who ended up only using the signs for a bit and some were late talkers and the signs were a blessing for everyone involved. I don't understand why teaching a child any form of communication would be bad. The little boy I watch now is about 18 months. He has a few spoken words he'll use consistently and babbles quite a bit. He know at least 20 signs though and is combining them into simple sentences. That helps so much when he's trying to convey something. Instead of screaming or crying he can sign something and I can at least have a general idea of what he means. I don't know why screaming and crying in frustration would be better than teaching him another way to communicate.

In a not child related setting, one of the checkers at the Target that I shop at is deaf. I like the fact that, through learning "baby sign" I can at least thank her in her own language.

[boysmom]

I agree, anything that helps a child communicate in a positive way is a good thing! The whole "hijaacking" thing is a non-issue. The more people sign actually the more the world can communicate with hearing impaired persons in general. I had a student who was profoundly deaf last year, she had an interpreter, but one day the interpreter wasn't there. My supervising SLP signed pretty well, THANK GOODNESS, about all I could say was "more" and that's not too helpful! The bathroom sign is very critical as well, I do know that one now. There's an autistic boy I work with who is non-verbal. His ipad was broken, but he could communicate his needs via signs. Heck, my 8 yo knows the going to the bathroom sign, he uses it when his teacher is talking and can't talk to him.

[Kitchen Princess]

Velcro or laces, my shoes will stay on.

The reason that was brought to mind is that I remember when Velcro shoes came out for kids, and I thought, well, we'll have a whole generation of kids who won't know how to tie shoes! But that's just ridiculous. They'll learn both, in due time!

Same with sign and speech. Velcro sure is easy on the little fingers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

Hijacking?? It's a language/means of communication. If more people know it, it's actually easier for members of the deaf community to communicate.

My late grandmother learned signs to communicate with her deaf uncle.

Aside from that, kids use their own signs and body language all the time! Pointing, holding out arms to be picked up, arching away, etc. Gestures are a natural part of communication. One of the funniest conversations I ever say was my mom asking some old ladies in Sicily how to take the bus to the beach. They spoke no English, my mom didn't speak Italian, but Jews and Italian both use their hands enough they were able to understand each other, lol.

[Patsy]

The following is ONLY my 2c:

I do think it's really important to consider minority communities' concerns with things like this. And especially out of respect to the Deaf community and acknowledgment of the culture that exists, I think it's important to be aware that "Baby Sign" is not a LANGUAGE that the child is learning. But it's a hard call to make, whether Baby Sign is co-opting the culture...

As others have explained above, there is something about the mode of signing that makes it physically easier for most babies; this means that when there's a gap between their language abilities (wanting to communicate using symbolic language) and their physical ability to speak with their mouths, there often isn't a gap between their language abilities and the physical ability to sign with their hands. So no, I wouldn't accept that using signs is disrespectful to Deaf communities. It's not "whoah deaf people are super cool and I'm going to use their clothes but not give a damn about their community concerns" sort of thing, it's "here's something that could help my baby, and that's why I'm going to use it."

But maybe the use of ASL signs, using them for non-Deaf purposes, is disrespectful? IDK. I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to take signs that already exist and maybe modify them for baby hands, than to invent new ones.

(Plus, some parents do start out using baby signs in the hopes of later learning an actual sign language - so what I said above about using signs for non-Deaf purposes doesn't necessarily apply to every case.)

[Wolfie]

I am skeptical of anything that promises to make your child smarter. The real question is does the hearing community have a right to hijack something meant for the hearing impaired/ developmentally disabled? Nobody used signs in our generation nor the ones before, unless they were hearing impaired, and we turned out fine. Frustration is just part of the growing up process. By the time babies are able to learn signs they should be talking.

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/guide/ba ... irst-words

I totally agree, especially with the bolded. If there were well documented studies I might feel differently, but I think that many of the children just substitute signs for actual words.

[Conuly]

Signs are words. Even if they're not actually ASL signs (some are, some aren't) they fit all the criteria of a word.

[BlackHawk]

I totally agree, especially with the bolded. If there were well documented studies I might feel differently, but I think that many of the children just substitute signs for actual words.

What type of studies are you looking for? No one claims ASL makes their child smarter. I'm really confused what you want.

Sign Language is a language. Signs in general are a language. Just because it's not spoken does not mean it's not "actual words". So do Deaf children not use "actual words"? Are they just completely illiterate and stupid? I'll give you the answer, NO, they are not. Children use whatever means of communication available to them. They can either communicate by screaming and pointing, or they can sign, or they can speak. I can't believe there are still people in the world who feel that people who sign aren't really communicating. How sad.

[Conuly]

What type of studies are you looking for? No one claims ASL makes their child smarter. I'm really confused what you want.

Sign Language is a language. Signs in general are a language. Just because it's not spoken does not mean it's not "actual words". So do Deaf children not use "actual words"? Are they just completely illiterate and stupid? I'll give you the answer, NO, they are not. Children use whatever means of communication available to them. They can either communicate by screaming and pointing, or they can sign, or they can speak. I can't believe there are still people in the world who feel that people who sign aren't really communicating. How sad.

Years after oralism should've been totally done with, there are people who do not want their deaf children to learn to sign at all because they have this messed up idea that somehow it will keep them from ever learning to speak, in the same way, I guess, that learning Spanish keeps kids from later learning French. Or something.

And it's not just in this area that you see people who would prefer to see their kids struggle to look normal badly than to see them function well in any other way. I just don't get it, and I won't pretend to either.

[Kitchen Princess]

But maybe the use of ASL signs, using them for non-Deaf purposes, is disrespectful? IDK. I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to take signs that already exist and maybe modify them for baby hands, than to invent new ones.

If my son and I learned Japanese so we could speak to each other privately in a predominantly non-Japanese speaking public, would that be disrespectful to Japanese people?

My bet is that there are a lot of little kids walking around who used baby signs and no one can tell because they are normal in every way.

[roddma]

I am very passionate about this topic, so I apologize in advanced if this comes off rude.

I find your position on this to be rather ignorant, honestly. I have not seen anyone here claim that using signs makes your children smarter, nor have I met anyone in real life who says such. To allow a child to be frustrated helps no one. Frustration is a part of life, by do you not try to make it easier for them when you can? Do you expect your 2 year old to be able to reach the toilet without your help when they are potty training in order for them to understand frustration? Most people I know give their child a boost. That doesn't make them smarter, it merely aids them. Sign language is as simple as that. It doesn't make them smarter, it gives them yet another tool in order to grow and communicate in our world today.

I don't think teaching your child five or so signs is "hijacking" anything. I know about 10 words in spanish, does that mean to teach them to my child is hijacking that language? Are the only people who should be able to communicate with the Deaf and hearing impaired other deaf and hearing impaired individuals? That to me screams ignorance. One of my greatest memories of teaching at a center was when I actually had a deaf student enrolled. My 2 year olds would go up to him and sign simple signs that they had been taught, and he understood them. He was able to communicate from day one with the other kids in the class and with myself. Without teaching my students the basics in order to remove frustrations, that little boy would have been left out of communication until I could teach the other kids signs.

I also find the fact that you relate that your generation didn't sign as a fact. My grandmother signed with my father. For all that it was worth of my relationship with my parents in the end, it was my father's ability to show me signs that started my love for the language. And my grandmother was born in 1908, and none of her siblings were deaf. I also find the comparison to be lacking. My grandmother also didn't use a car seat for her children, and she herself was never strapped in the car. My father "turned out fine".

Please take the time to learn why things are done and don't decide that just because you didn't have it growing up doesn't mean it doesn't have merit for others.

That is because our parents learned to recognized our cues. I never said anything was wrong with signs if there is a need for them like if they have hearing impaired relatives or are heairng impaired. You must hav emissed that part of my comment. Here is a comment from a deaf person from an article:

http://bolesblogs.com/2013/01/18/how-ba ... -language/

"When we were asked to write the Baby Signs book, I was a little concerned because I knew what the publisher wanted and it wasn’t really what we wanted as language teachers. As a Deaf woman, I take my native, American Sign Language, seriously — and when that language is broken up into little pieces so babies can use it to entertain their families, it insults me as a person and educator. If you want to teach signs to babies, why not actually give them the full language in the effort? Make it a serious attempt at second language acquisition instead of just a plaything?"

SO hijacking is when you misuse something other than it's intended purpose, not learning a new thing. I know a few ASl signs myself, bu ti neve ruse them with hearing people simply for the fun of it.

[Sky_Diamond]

As much as I regret saying this, I have to admit that this was a very good move for Josie and her developmental delays.

Due to mine caused by cerebral palsy, I couldn't talk until I was three years old. I wished my mum had taught me to sign, it would have made life so much easier.

[Turtle]

That is because our parents learned to recognized our cues. I never said anything was wrong with signs if there is a need for them like if they have hearing impaired relatives or are heairng impaired. You must hav emissed that part of my comment. Here is a comment from a deaf person from an article:

http://bolesblogs.com/2013/01/18/how-ba ... -language/

"When we were asked to write the Baby Signs book, I was a little concerned because I knew what the publisher wanted and it wasn’t really what we wanted as language teachers. As a Deaf woman, I take my native, American Sign Language, seriously — and when that language is broken up into little pieces so babies can use it to entertain their families, it insults me as a person and educator. If you want to teach signs to babies, why not actually give them the full language in the effort? Make it a serious attempt at second language acquisition instead of just a plaything?"

SO hijacking is when you misuse something other than it's intended purpose, not learning a new thing. I know a few ASl signs myself, bu ti neve ruse them with hearing people simply for the fun of it.

Do you find it offensive when people teach their English speaking children to count in Spanish or French without attempting to teach them Spanish or French as a second language?

[Little Miss Alien]

I signed with my son (using a mix of BSL and simplified BSL) from when he was 10 weeks old and he was able to sign back by around 4-5 months. He was picking up signs very quickly the time he was 1, and gradually dropped the signing as learned more words. My ex SIL is deaf and wasn't allowed to sign, but I lost a significant portion of hearing at 5 years old and learned few signs addition to lipreading. So I've always valued sign. My son is no different to any other boy his age, apart from perhaps having very vocabulary now. I don't see how facilitating language in any form could ever be bad thing. For once I will give credit to Michelle for doing something that is valuable to Josie's development.

[BlackHawk]

That is because our parents learned to recognized our cues. I never said anything was wrong with signs if there is a need for them like if they have hearing impaired relatives or are heairng impaired. You must hav emissed that part of my comment. Here is a comment from a deaf person from an article:

http://bolesblogs.com/2013/01/18/how-ba ... -language/

"When we were asked to write the Baby Signs book, I was a little concerned because I knew what the publisher wanted and it wasn’t really what we wanted as language teachers. As a Deaf woman, I take my native, American Sign Language, seriously — and when that language is broken up into little pieces so babies can use it to entertain their families, it insults me as a person and educator. If you want to teach signs to babies, why not actually give them the full language in the effort? Make it a serious attempt at second language acquisition instead of just a plaything?"

SO hijacking is when you misuse something other than it's intended purpose, not learning a new thing. I know a few ASl signs myself, bu ti neve ruse them with hearing people simply for the fun of it.

I did not miss your part on if there is a "reason". My question is, should only those who are deaf be able to speak the language? I don't know too many people who use ASL with their children "simply for the fun of it". Using a different form of communication for the point of reducing frustration and allowing a child the ability to communicate their wants and needs is not "simply for the fun of it".

As for the comment you put up, does the person who gave this comment realize that all people learn languages broken up? I do not find, as a hearing person, that people are infantizing English when they learn it in bits and pieces for their own use. People learn the phrases they need to learn in order to communicate. It does not change the definition of the language, nor does it change the reason that language is in use.

I'm unsure what your statement on "That is because our parents learned to recognized our cues" means. There are cues you learn, but there are also times when you simply do not understand. Why not teach your child a better way to communicate? That is what it comes down to really. Why is it a bad thing to give children a better way to communicate?

[amydamy]

That is because our parents learned to recognized our cues. I never said anything was wrong with signs if there is a need for them like if they have hearing impaired relatives or are heairng impaired. You must hav emissed that part of my comment. Here is a comment from a deaf person from an article:

http://bolesblogs.com/2013/01/18/how-ba ... -language/

"When we were asked to write the Baby Signs book, I was a little concerned because I knew what the publisher wanted and it wasn’t really what we wanted as language teachers. As a Deaf woman, I take my native, American Sign Language, seriously — and when that language is broken up into little pieces so babies can use it to entertain their families, it insults me as a person and educator. If you want to teach signs to babies, why not actually give them the full language in the effort? Make it a serious attempt at second language acquisition instead of just a plaything?"

SO hijacking is when you misuse something other than it's intended purpose, not learning a new thing. I know a few ASl signs myself, bu ti neve ruse them with hearing people simply for the fun of it.

I know ASL I use it for the fun of it sometimes. I'm not hijacking it and I've never met a deaf person who had an issue with it.

My parents are hard of hearing my brother and I signed as babies before Baby signs was a thing because my mom uses ASL and verbal speech simultaneously. My brother and I did the same until we went to school and spent time away from people who used ASL. I still slip back into it around my parents. My mom has taught ASL to all kinds of people sometimes just for fun.