You asked whether it’s true that “babies can talk better with their hands than with their mouths,” and you asked whether babies who sign end up enjoying long term benefits.
To the second, the answer on this thread has been “People don’t teach babies signs to give them a leg-up, but rather, just to be able to communicate with them.” Indeed, everything my wife and I read which encouraged us to do the sign thing very explicitly denied that there would be long-term benefits to the practice.
So then, are you saying your BS meter is maxed out with regard to the claim that babies can sign before they can talk?
To be clear–no one has claimed babies can sign language before they can talk. Rather, it is that they can make a few signs (“more,” “food,” “play,” “ball,” etc) before they can talk. Comparisons to the Chimp disappointments are therefore not relevant–no one disputes (AFAIK) that the chimps can use symbols, rather, the disappointment was that it turned out they weren’t using them linguistically. No one claims babies can do so, either.
But anyway, just to be clear, is that what you’re saying you doubt–that most (or many?) babies can use some hand signs before they can vocalize them?
No doubt, Koko could see and use several signs (words). But only her handlers could see and translate Koko’s sentences (language).
My Ex is a certified US Gov’t ASL translator. (She is “hearing impaired” but not deaf). We watched a special on Koko, and although my Ex could see distinct signs, she could not get the sentences Koko’s handlers were “translating”. She called “bullshit”.
Thus, my guess is that a baby could make a few signs and even understand them. But I don’t think a baby’s brain is developed enough to turn those signs into language (sentences).
So a baby signing “food” (or “bottle” or whatever) when the baby is hungry- I’ll buy that. But that is not really language.
Now, my Dad started to teach me (he was an Elementary School Teacher) to read when I was 3. This did give me a leg up, as I could read all the way through “Dick and Jane” easily in the 1st grade. My reading speed is something like 1000wpm.
So, I guess a few signs could help a baby learn faster. Maybe.
Exactly. In no way is anyone claiming that babies can use ASL fluently. Baby signs are just a convenient way for toddlers to communicate simple ideas they can’t yet articulate. For a lot of babies, it’s easier to mime “drink” than it is to say the word. That’s all there is to it. And if anyone was willing to go onto Amazon, do a search for “baby signs,” and look up the 3 or 4 books available on the subject, perhaps some more information might be gathered. A very interesting book, What’s going on in there?, detailing neurological studies of babies’ language skills, is right there on the page. It’s a few years old but is fascinating reading.
I have no doubt that babies can make hand gestures. I have no doubt that gorillas can make hand gestures. I have no doubt that parrots can make word-like sounds. I have no doubt that care givers feel that those gestures represent intelligence and that the person or animal is truly communicating.
But I would like more proof than just “I feel strongly about it.” Your video no doubt provides all the proof you need, but it is highly subjective. When the various animals mentioned here “spoke”, the trainer interpreted what was said. When the subjects said something appropriate, that was considered evidence of intelligent communication. When they said something strange, the trainer said, “Oh, she is just making a joke,” which was also evidence of intelligent communication. Whatever hand or paw gestures were made were always evidence of what was to be proved. The subject could never make a gesture that was considered contrary to the premise.
If you dislike my comparison of babies with animals, consider facilitated communication, which claims to be a method of communication between handicapped humans and other humans thru a “facilitator,” who guides the subject’s fingers on a keyboard to make words and sentances. There are miles of testimonials from grateful parents who feel they can now talk to their kids, but all evidence points to the more likely possibility that they are communicating with the facilitator instead. It’s wishful thinking at its best.
So when I see a strong parallel between those cases and baby sign, that’s what makes my BS meter start to spin. If it walks like a duck…
Did your child ever sign something that puzzled you, or made no sense, or that you struggled to make some meaning from? Could that have been a random gesture, or one that was calculated to provoke a desired response from you (as opposed to genuinely expressing a want or need)?
What we need to establish is that the mind of a small child is using intelligence to control hand actions, that there is a link between the mind and the hand that eliminates random movements as the cause, and that speech at that age is incapable of expressing the same thing. It would indeed be hard to devise a test, but not impossible. One way I would begin is to eliminate the parent from the equation during the testing phase.
And if it makes any difference, of all the examples of communication mentioned here, I think the most likely one to be true is the baby sign concept, and the least likely, communication across species boundaries. I don’t find it that much of a stretch to believe that hand coordination development is faster than vocal development, and that the brain matures faster than both. But I would like to see some good proof. A video interpreted by a parent is not.
No. Really, how could he have? He knew five or six signs before he started using words, all of them with very straightforward, basic meanings. The only one I can think of that it might be possible to puzzle over would be “more,” since in some imaginable situations I might think “more what?” But this never occured–he used “more” only when we stopped giving him something. But you’re right that none of this establishes that he was communicating, because:
That’s a possibility in many cases. (Though not with “more” since he always used it in a particular situation, but still, the following is relevant to that: )
I don’t take babies to be expressing anything with these signs. Rather than expressing, they are, at the most, signalling. The sign is simply an outward indication of an inward state. I do think the baby starts to shift over to genuine “expression” at some point, but it’s hard to say when, and it’s not really important, for my purposes, to know when this happens. It’s nothing I’d think it important to be able to prove, since I don’t insist upon it myself.
I should clarify that: I meant it’s possible that sometimes the gestures are “random” in the sense that he might be making the gesture without any accompanying want for the thing indicated. I didn’t mean it’s possible that it’s sometimes “random” in the sense that he was just moving his fingers and hands around and they happened to fall into something that resembles a gesture. For example, I never had to ask “Is he gesturing or not?”
I’d sure like to see a study like the one you described, though. There doesn’t seem to be one.
Musicat, are you a parent or teacher of infants? I’m not trying to be snarky, the reason I ask is that it’s very apparent when a very small child isn’t getting his wants met. He keeps on asking, whether that’s by signs, or by crying. So if the baby is holding up his hand and making a fist, then releasing it, than making a fist again, and you changing his diaper doesn’t help and giving him a toy doesn’t help and seeing the bottle on the counter makes him make the fist movements more quickly and he starts fussing, and then when you hand him the bottle he stops making the gesture, it’s a damn good chance that the gesture meant, “Mother dearest, I am thirsty and/or hungry and would like some of that delicious bovine derived nutrition in liquid form.” or, y’know, “milk”. ESPECIALLY when you’ve spent the last two months making a fist and saying “milk” whenever you give him a bottle.
I’m sorry, but your skepticism is just crossing the line into the ridiculous. And it’s just as possible that my use of the word “ridiculous” means “a pale shade of pink,” but it’s a lot more likely that I use it to mean “unworthy of serious consideration”.
I don’t agree with this. There are too many examples in history (though I never can come up with examples when I know examples abound… :smack: ) of things that seem obvious to many people turning out not to be true, or to be very different than people supposed, upon scientific scrutiny.
It seems absolutely clear to me that around the age of one, babies can make meaningful signs with their hands, before they’re able to do so (recognizably) with their mouth. My experience with my kid causes me to have no doubt about this. But even I would still like to see a study done.
I have no problems with doing studies either. And of course, one must always be open to one’s hypothesis being proven false.
But what I have a problem with is the idea that we can’t know whether or not the gestures are purposeful as it pertains to our individual kids. Yes, I can, for the reasons mentioned above. Are ALL kids capable of it? I have no idea. MOST kids? Well, that’s where more research would be nice. MY kid? Yeah, she was. And I’m just irritated at the (widespread) attitude that unless some study has been done showing something as true of the majority, that means that my single instance is meaningless.
I’ve been staying out of this thread precisely because the OP is asking about studies, not anecdotes, but I just sort of twitched there and posted without thinking it through. I’ll leave now, thanks. Sorry for bothering y’all with my personal experience.
My daughter is 11 months old, we are trying to expose her to baby sign. The only sign we have seen from her up to date is the one for ‘Milk’, and this sign is such that it could be a random hand flexing.
However, if I ask my daughter to clap she will, every time. If I ask her “how big is she” she raises both hands into the air. She is not beyond babbling at the moment as far as speech goes. I am in no doubt as to her having the intelligence to control her hand actions when given a prompt, but the jury is out at the moment as to whether she will produce, repeatably, a consistent movement to express a desire that she cannot vocalise.
I personally am a believer as I have seen other children at sign 'n sign classes use the signs.
I do not have experience with this, since I never tried to teach my kids any signs, but I don’t understand why it seems so far-fetched that babies could be capable of it. When I was a kid, we taught our cat to give us certain signs when he wanted something…it’s just conditioning, really. If a cat, who has barely any frontal lobe to speak of, can learn to touch a doorknob to “ask” to have that door opened, why shouldn’t a baby be able to make a gesture to “ask” for some milk?
Ack! After reading Wanderer’s post, I have to say that I didn’t mean to imply that a baby who doesn’t seem to pick up signs quickly is not as smart as a cat!
My personal belief, and this may be refuted by others with more experience, is that the signs are picked up more or less quickly depending on a child’s personality, rather than intelligence. Some babies are more demanding than others, and when it comes to language, it seems to me that the demanding ones are likely to be more motivated to figure out how to ask for what they want. My daughter was like this, and although she didn’t talk very early, she learned how to do it very quickly once she started. My son, who is 4 months old now, is much more laid back, and he has to be REALLY starving to even cry for food…he’s more likely to just get a little fussy and start squirming around, whereas my daughter would open her mouth and YELL when she was that age. I have always thought that I should have tried signs with her…I’ll bet she could have picked them up.
Maybe I’ll try it with Junior and see if he figures them out.
Some links to abstracts for studies beyond those previously mentioned (and by other authors):
Horne PJ, Lowe CF, Harris FD. Naming and categorization in young children: v. manual sign training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2007 May; 87(3):367-81. (this is part 5 of a multi-part series of papers) link
Thompson RH, Cotnoir-Bichelman NM, McKerchar PM, Tate TL, Dancho KA. Enhancing early communication through infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2007 Spring; 40(1):15-23. link
Thompson RH, McKerchar PM, Dancho KA. The effects of delayed physical prompts and reinforcement on infant sign language acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2004 Fall; 37(3):379-83. link
Plus there are related links on each of those pages, so there are plenty more studies you can read to your heart’s content. From a quick glance, baby signing doesn’t sound like a crock to me.
On preview: Frylock, since the OP refers to their “BS meter” going off when they hear anecdotes, it sounds to me like they do think it’s far-fetched.
I don’t know…saying that it “sounds like wishful thinking” and “humans are easily fooled” seems to indicate pretty strong skepticism to me. I get that what Musicat is looking for is scientific evidence, rather than anecdotal, but dismissing anecdotal and common-sense evidence out-of-hand typically indicates to me that a person believes that the theory is most likely not true. Many scientific studies are done because someone noticed a certain phenomenon, and decided to test it. If everyone assumed that anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything at all, a lot of scientific studies would never even be done.
I guess the OP can speak for him/herself about the “far-fetched” issue. I see cautionary notes from the OP, but no implications that it’s implausible to think kids could make signs.
Saying that the “BS Meter” has gone off about something doesn’t mean its far-fetched, it means you don’t find the evidence presented to be reliable. Similarly for comments like “sounds like wishful thinking” and “humans are easily fooled.” These kinds of comments do not express incredulity toward the plausibility of the claim, but rather, incredulity toward th reliability of the evidence adduced for the claim. A fine distinction, perhaps, but a real one.
I can, at the same time, both think a claim is plausible and think the ones claiming it are claiming it for bad reasons. The OP has seemed to me to be in such a position.
This is not the result of any scientific study, so some of you may wish to scroll on…
One of my cousins, who is now in his 40’s, was born deaf. His parents as well as his older brother and sister learned ASL. All of them habitually talked in a mixture of ASL and spoken language. Flash forward 20 years, and my female cousin (who is not deaf but is very proficient in ASL) has two children within two years. I am visiting for a funeral and am absolutely amazed at how well behaved her kids are - and at how well they can sign! The oldest, who was about 3, also talked a lot (she was quite the little princess) but the little boy made all of his needs known through sign - and was quite put out with me because I couldn’t understand when he was asking to sit in my lap!
My cousin said they never really “meant” to teach the kids sign, but they are so used to automatically doing it the kids starting picking it up and they have continued it. I think it is wonderful - they know another language!
Actually I have seen toddlers use signs in phrases. Thing is most hearing toddler signers are verbally speaking in phrases by 18 months and the signs tend to go by the wayside for both child and parent by then. They’d keep it up if it stayed useful: hearing children raised by deaf parents in America become bilingual in both English and in ASL, including phrases and questions (even if their exposure to spoken language is just incidental). (here)
I am amused by the level of pathologic skepticism here. Truth be told many spoken words early verbal toddlers use are much more unclear and subject to “faciliated communication” than these signs are! The sign for “more” is much clearer and specific than the toddler spoken word “more.” And no doubt many a first “mama” and “dada” are wishful interpretations!
The closest I can find to the study requested is evidence that early exposure to sign language helps deaf children better acquire spoken language later on. (here.)
No, I have no interest in seeing anyone do a study to prove the efficacy of baby signing in normal children more than has been done. Why? What does it matter? There is enough done that shows that there is no risk of harm by doing this and that it may make it easier for a toddler and her/his parent(s) to undestand each other, maybe even helping later verbal skills. Don’t do it and your kid will learn to talk just fine too. It is such a non big deal either way. If you have the energy and the interest as a parent then have some fun and do this as part of your play with your child. If life is too chaotic (ours was) or you don’t care to then don’t.
There are more important things to spend research energies and monies on.
[QUOTE=Musicat] Dangermom, So do we have any hard evidence that [ol][li]vocalization development lags hand development, and[]mental development is more rapid than previously thought, and[]the advanced mental development can be expressed thru hand movements, but no other way?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
Kid’s hand development far outstrips vocalization development. All kids use sign language to communicate long before they verbal language, even those kids not taught any signs. If you’ve been around infants, you’ve seen it. Ever see a (preverbal) infant point at a toy they want to play with, or wave bye-bye? This is nonverbal communication using the hands.
Nonverbal communication works in other ways, too. With my own (preverbal) kid, for example, when we ask him if he wants a snack, if he does, he will walk to the fridge; if not, he’ll just keep on playing with whatever toy or book he has. This doesn’t mean my kid is a genius; it simply demonstrates that he can understand and communicate certain concepts before he can verbalize them.
Mental development is not more rapid than previously thought; the theory behind baby signs is simply that verbal communication is a skill that has always developed after a child has cognitively developed the desire to communicate wants and needs. But kids develop rudimentary nonverbal communication skills relatively early on; baby signs just tries to make nonverbal communication more of a two-way street.
And it is rudimentary. Anecdotally, the most I’ve ever heard is a nonverbal baby mastering eight or so signs, and the average is closer to 2-4. This is not “advanced mental development,” the infants aren’t discussing Kant with sign language. About the most complex concept I’ve seen expressed through baby signs is “more”. Almost all baby signs are concrete and simple, like “milk”, “eat”, etc.
Most parents I’ve talked to consider signs a nice aid that lessens some frustration on part of both parent and child, but don’t consider it to be the godsend the baby sign books make it out to be.
