Opinions about teaching sign language at young age

Roam4Life

Roam4Life

New Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
I am curious about what your opinion is on this...

I was told that when a young child is taught sign language at very young age... they will grow up as a gifted child or smarter than other child who is only taught speaking.

In someway, I think this is kind of true from what I see ... I have nieces who is hearing .. My family is deaf so we taught them sign language as their first language. Now my oldest niece is "gifted" student and she is fluently in sign language. My 2nd niece, she learned how to speak spanish at age of 3/4. She can do three languages (sign, speak, speak spanish). Even tho now she forgot her spanish. My third niece, she speak and sign very well.. she is only 3.

So, I was told that it is a good idea for hearing family to teach their child some sign language at young age. They will be more "smarter" as they are bilangual (spelling?) when they grow up.

Opinions... ???
 
That's true (I've read this philosophy
somewhere... )
 
I was told that scientist did do some research on this and apparently that it is true. But from what I see, I do believe it. I would like to read that in a document somewhere if there is.
 
Roam4Life said:
I am curious about what your opinion is on this...

I was told that when a young child is taught sign language at very young age... they will grow up as a gifted child or smarter than other child who is only taught speaking.

In someway, I think this is kind of true from what I see ... I have nieces who is hearing .. My family is deaf so we taught them sign language as their first language. Now my oldest niece is "gifted" student and she is fluently in sign language. My 2nd niece, she learned how to speak spanish at age of 3/4. She can do three languages (sign, speak, speak spanish). Even tho now she forgot her spanish. My third niece, she speak and sign very well.. she is only 3.

So, I was told that it is a good idea for hearing family to teach their child some sign language at young age. They will be more "smarter" as they are bilangual (spelling?) when they grow up.

Opinions... ???
Click to expand...

Yes, I read somewhere on CNN about the findings by researchers about teach their child sign language at young ages. The hearing babies DO use their hands to gesture/sign to communicate with their parents before they develop the ablities to use their voices to communicate with their parents. I found it exciting that ASL or any sign language do have a positive benefit for the hearing parents to sign to their child(ren) in the early stage.
 
http://www.deaftoday.com/news/archives/003895.html


December 28, 2003
Why teach babies sign language?
From: Alameda Times-Star, CA - Dec 28, 2003

Dear Mr. Dad: I've been hearing a lot about teaching children sign language. What's the deal? Is it worth doing or is it some kind of scam?

A: A few decades ago, researchers began to notice that hearing-impaired parents who taught their children to sign were able to communicate with them before they were 9 months old. Children with two hearing parents don't usually have much to say until after their first birthday.

If you think about it, using the hands to communicate makes a lot of sense. After all, babies have a lot more control over their fingers and hands than they do over their tongue and mouth.

Besides giving them a way to communicate earlier, signing improves babies' motor skills, builds vocabulary and language abilities, reduces tantrums and frustration and has even been linked with an increase in IQ.

Signing with your baby is good for you, too. When you understand what your baby wants, you'll have fewer tears to deal with and you (and your partner) will be less frustrated. When you're feeling relaxed and in control, parenting is a lot easier and a lot more fun. And that, in turn, will bring you and your baby closer.

Two major baby signing systems are out there. They're similar, but there are some important distinctions.

Joseph Garcia's "Sign with Your Baby" is based solidly on American Sign Language. Most signs your baby will learn are fairly intuitive, such as touching the fingers to the lips for "eat" and hooking the thumbs together and flapping the hands for "butterfly."

Other signs are a little tougher to figure out (touching the thumb to the forehead for "dad" and to the chin for "mom) or may be difficult for little hands (putting the thumb between the first and middle fingers of a fist for "toilet" or holding up the hand as if indicating "five" and lowering the middle and ring fingers for "airplane").

Garcia's philosophy is that if you're going to the trouble to teach your baby a language, you might as well go with a real one. A baby who knows some ASL will be able to communicate with babies (and deaf people of any age) anywhere. And if you're thinking long term, ASL fulfills the language requirement for admission to a growing number of colleges.

Linda Acredolo's and Susan Goodwyn's "Baby Signs" is also based on ASL, but it's more flexible. Their theory is that as your baby isn't going to be using sign language all that long, it's best to make it as easy to learn as possible. So parents are encouraged to modify the ASL signs as they see fit and to invent their own. This could make communication with people outside the family a little tougher. However, most of the signs you and your baby are likely to come up with will be pretty easy to decipher.

Both systems are excellent and both give you and your baby an incredible opportunity to communicate with each other. I like "Baby Signs" a little better, though, because of the flexibility. If you go this route, try to use as many of the ASL signs as you can and modify them only as necessary.

However, if you prefer a more systematic approach or, if any deaf people are in your family, "Sign with Your Baby" is the way to go. And even though some signs aren't completely obvious, if you practice them enough, you'll do fine.

Armin Brott, whose latest book is "Father for Life: A Journey of Joy, Challenge, and Change," hosts KOIT's weekly "Positive Parenting" radio show. Send him your questions c/o Bay Area Living, 4770 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 or armin@mrdad.com .

©1999-2003 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
 
u're welcome :) (p.s. that's my expertise :)
 
Last edited:
My youngest brother is nine now. When he was a baby, my mom was an interpreter for the deaf and so it was natural for her to teach my brother to sign. He was signing at 6 months old and loved to tell us to turn the lights on, pointed out "hats" when we watched football games, could tell us when he was hungry, and when he needed a diaper change. I truly believe that teaching infants to sign is a good idea.
Now, whether it affected his intelligence, I couldn't say. He is definitely smart, but so are his parents. And since he's the only child I've been able to observe who knew sign as a baby, I can't really say whether I believe it affects their intelligence.
 
I had an interpreter who had 2 hearing sons and they knew sign language. Sometimes she would automatically sign to her husband while using the phone and he can't understand her while her kids can. She can tell her kids to stop doing something, etc, etc, far away without having to yell.

I agree that if you want to teach children any language, it will come in much easier as children. That's why I believe in moving Foreign Language to Kindergarten or elementary. Imagine how we would have children knowing multiple languages as adults.
 
I agree with that, my old hs teacher's 6 year old speaks, signs fluent asl, speaks french and spanish, and she's at a 6th grade reading level at only 6 years old.. and I have 2 sisters, one signed before she talked the other still has a hard time signing, and the signer's smarter. maybe its just a concience?
 
Wish that ASL was taught to hearing kids at all schools. Imagine how much more flexible their minds will become from using more of the spatial reasoning areas of the brain.
 
Back
Top