Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Esme Fae's avatar

Like many things, there's a time and place where it is appropriate and/or necessary. I agree that most normally-developing kids don't need to learn baby signs, but it can be a lifesaver for some.

My eldest was very verbal and had a large vocabulary as a toddler but would "lose her words" whenever she was the slightest bit hungry, tired, or stressed in any way. She turned out to be on the autism spectrum, and at 24 she still tends to lose her words when she's upset. She was almost 2, and as I said had a very large vocabulary, but struggled to communicate her needs. For example, if she was thirsty, instead of asking for water, she would just start screaming at the top of her lungs and it was very difficult to calm her down. I taught her signs, and noticed that while she couldn't seem to remember the *word* for "drink" when she was thirsty, she had no problem remembering the sign. She also really struggled with things like "please" and "thank you," perhaps due to the abstract concept (autistic kids tend to be very concrete thinkers) so getting her to say "thank you" usually provoked a meltdown - but she would make the sign for "thank you" with no problem.

My middle daughter was about a year old at the time, and she just sort of picked up the signs by watching her older sister. As it happened, that was a good thing because she didn't actually start talking until she was almost 2; but she was very adept with signing and got her point across. Sometimes I wonder if her facility with signs played a part in her late talking; but my mother-in-law tells me my husband didn't talk until he was 2 either. She takes after my husband in many ways; and grew up to be an network engineer just like him - I have heard that late talking is very common amongst those who grow up to be engineers.

I did not bother with signs with my 3rd baby as she had completely normal language development, plus her older sisters seemed to intuitively know what she wanted and would translate if necessary!

Expand full comment
Charlotte (has) Baby Brain's avatar

It's really interesting to hear thoughts on this from an American perspective. I'm in the UK (England, specifically) and we have much less of a push on excellence and IQ points etc for babies/young children (at least, as far as I've noticed) so these things never even crossed my mind when I started signing with my babies.

"It also feels like a further push to split up the dyad in two and get that baby on the road to independence." - this is an intriguing point, especially. I went to baby sign language with all three of my kids and although I was by no means consistent with it outside of class, I did teach them all some of the very basic signs. I didn't do it for independence so much as to be able to help them more myself, and to be able to communicate with them even more than I already do. Just because this is my experience, though, obviously doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think the culture of where you're raising your kids must have a big impact on how these sorts of things are perceived. It sounds like where you are, babies are being willed toward doing things for themselves much quicker than they should be (not your baby, from what you've said but the babies around you) so of course teaching them language would seem like a part of this. Where I am, I'm fortunate to be in a small pocket of society that champions co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, babywearing and responsive caregiving - as such, signing with our babies feels like an extension of the dyad, rather than an attempt to break it up

Not in any way trying to say you're wrong, just interested in how different perspectives can be on a topic. Thank you for sharing yours

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts