Deaf High‑importance
This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

The statement "topic/comment [is] the grammar of spoken languages which lack a written form" is completely false. Lots of languages with clear grammatical subjects are unwritten, and conversely written languages such as Chinese have been claimed to be topic-comment. The adaptation of writing to a language does not radically restructure its grammatical system!

Also, "Look! Squirrel!" is not a topic-comment construction (unless you consider the pointing to be the topic, in which case "[point] Squirrel!" is a better example), and "There is a squirrel roughly to the north-east of us, approximately 20 feet away." does not have a grammatical subject or object, so it does not at all illustrate a subject-verb-object construction. --kwami 08:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Most all of the sites I seem to find on the Internet are pay-sites. This makes me a little dubious. Does anyone have any good free sites? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a whole lot to it. The books I've seen are mostly testimonials to convince you to try it. There's maybe half a chapter of useful info such as at what age you might see results, the importance of repetition and reinforcement (you know, general pedagogy), reduction in temper tantrums, greater eloquence once speech is learned, and children passing sign on to their younger sibs after they've ceased to use it with their parents. Then there's the debate over ASL vs. true baby sign; for the former, you can get a regular ASL dictionary; in the case of the latter, the book will give suggestions for useful words and ways to sign them, but in the end will tell you that the best signs are the ones you and your child come up with together. So other than a feel-good exercise, 90% of the text is useless once you've decided to go this route. I doubt the pay sites offer anything more than the books. kwami 19:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just reversed an addition of a pay site (http://www.babysign.co.uk/) as spam. Should I not have done it? --Phelan 06:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another pay site was added([1]). This time I just moved it down and marked it as a commercial site. Phelan 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most interested in the cons. There seems to be lots of sites saying how wonderful it is, but what research contradicts or supports the claims.

• I actually haven't heard of any yet. I've got a friend who's been studying ASL/interpreting for many years now and has studied baby signs from a professional point of view, and she only had positive things to say about it as well. The biggest "con" claim seems to be that it will discourage kids from learning to talk, and that's been refuted by most professionals that've actually studied the situation. I'm looking forward to trying this once my baby's born. --Maelwys 20:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Another possible con could be that it would be more difficult to learn normal sign language after learning the simplified one. However, I don't think that children that young can be imprinted to such a degree. I'd ask a developmental psychologist (or a psycholinguist) for more information about possible cons. - Tom Tolnam, 167.128.45.97 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would refute the "con" that using ASL signs delays speech. I have used ASL with my own children, as well as children in my childcare that weren't speaking yet, to encourage early communication. As long as signing doesn't become a substitute for spoken language (meaning that the caregiver verbalizes the word accompanying the sign, the child will not be discouraged from speaking. Also, I am an advocate of teaching ASL-accurate signs to babies, not a made-up sign language, in order to create a natural foundation for learning more advanced ASL in later childhood. Amirussell (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to remove some of the howto-like statements and the bulk of the language that was written in the second-person. Further edits and wikification are probably necessary, however. There are also several unverified claims in this article for which sources should be cited. This one in particular is bugging me: "However, all available research shows that hearing children who sign as infants go on to develop particularly rich spoken vocabularies"

If "all available research" shows it, then would it really be that hard for the author to back up their claim? Explaining the origins of terminology like "highly motivating" and "need based" would also be helpful. MrZaius^talk 05:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I wanted to join the discussion here. In my book on baby sign, I use the terms "need based" and "high impact" when talking about different types and motivations for babies who are learning to sign. I don't want to edit the main article because I don't know how, but here is a brief paragraph:

"Need-Based Signs are those signs that reflect a baby's needs. Anything dealing with sustenance, comfort, warmth, sleep, and safety would fall in this category. High-Impact Signs are signs connected with objects, activities, or situations that you know your own baby finds highly interesting or extremely fun." Beyer, Monica. Baby Talk. 1st ed. New York City: Tarcher, 2006. 19.

I agree with you here. As soon as I get back to town and have steady access again to the computer, I'll definitely put in the research that backs this up, as well as the nay-sayers. Be on the lookout!

This is information makes no sence at all. You have just wasted like an hour of your time!

This article is written from a decidedly advocatory point of view. It doesn't give objective information about baby sign language. It's an abuse of Wikipedia's open forum policy. 66.236.15.114 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been worse: [2] If it could use further cleanup, or if you have the sources needed to point to objective analysis of the topic, then you too can help. MrZaius^talk 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix some of the non-objective information in my edit today, but I'm pretty new to Wikipedia's NPOV, and I couldn't find any sources who criticized Baby Sign (either as a detrimental or even ineffective practice), so I'm not sure if I helped or hurt the objectivity of the article with my edits. The former, I hope.

Can anyone find some peer-reviewed articles that show negligible benefit to baby sign language? I'm not saying there *s* a negligible benefit, only that the existence of such a study would show that there was evidence on both sides (as opposed to singular endorsement).

The undiscussed move with unclear rationale introduced a title that seems to imply coverage of sign language in disabled children as well. Please explain or revert. MrZaius^talk 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby Sign" seems to be a brand name. This article isn't about one particular business model, it's about the entire practice of teaching sign to infants and small children. I can't find any rationale for always referring to it as "Baby Sign", that proper noun is not what should be used. Photouploaded 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for the recommended starting age for Baby Sign but, alas, I could not find this information. I treat Wikipedia as my second brain so I was most disappointed that I was let down. Indeed I am reconsidering a formal request for a refund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.152.142 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there have been any studies looking at optimum starting age. I think it might be difficult to find one. Doherty-Sneddon certainly doesn't refer to any. But I think there is a tacit assumption that for signing with infants to have most benefit it should be done before vocal language starts to emerge. I don't see that there can be much negative impact of signing from birth, although a more sensible start time might be when the baby can recognise hand gestures as being different. My guess is that's going to be some time in the first few months, as soon as the focus of attention starts to open out from just faces and facial expressions. For hearing babies I suppose there may be a pre-adaptation to mother's voice even pre-birth, so vocal communication gets a head start. With non-hearing babies maybe gesture will have greater significance ealier. But not being a practionner, it's hard to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, and not me, should discuss the research of Dr. Marilyn Daniels into this discussion. 'Dancing with Words: Signing for Hearing Children's Literacy' is a wonderful reference on the benefits of signing with hearing children.

68.106.23.211 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Marilyn C. Prevatte[reply]

I suggest a wikibook about teach sign language in infants and toddlers by the parents.--Mac (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two distinct systems of baby sign language in use: the ASL-based system promoted by Garcia, and the "Baby Signs" system of Acredolo and Goodwyn. The article should discuss this, and ideally should compare the two systems, their merits and disadvantages, etc.--Srleffler (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASL based is the way to go. Using the "Baby Signs" system, using made up signs, only creates confusion. I should know, I've taught ASL for 20+ years, and have seen the results of children (both Deaf and hearing) who were taught made up signs - wasn't pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SignmomMJ (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“You should know,” because you say so, and cite anecdotal evidence. Awesome! —Wiki Wikardo 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole articleis so ridiculous. For a start it conflates pre-linguistic symbolic communication with LANGUAGE acquisition. If you don't know the difference between communication and language you really should not be promoting ideas about language acquisition. Teaching ASL to a child with no sense of self and grammar is not different to teaching the child any old random symbols... unless ofcourse the child is being raised in an ASL L1 environment. Language acquisition simply requires meaniful linguistic input in their environment: i.e. TALKING to kids is all tehy need to flourish. 11:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.158 (talk)

Would you mind providing a reliable source or two in addition to ranting? Cresix (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can Cresix write a question without an ad hominen contained? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langauge_acquisition It'll give you an overview of current understand of L1 LA. Read this which will show also that ASL morphology is highly divergent to spoken English, so there is no logical advantage to teaching ASL for personal development if the child is not in an ASL community- though I would argue aside that teaching _SL to all children would promote inclusion, but that it speaks nothing to the boasts of Baby Sign. In fact, in terms of prelinguistic communication any sign would be as good as another because there is no inherent magic in one grammar-free sign over the other to mind that doesn'y yet have any grammatical capacity. And just to be as non-ranty as possible, I'm going to assume that you are unaware of what distinguishes langae from communication and will direct your good 'ad hominem' self to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar.

Thus in summary teaching ASL to kids who are not yet capable of grammatical understanding is like teaching an elephant to play piano... The bits the kids will get right are not actually going to anymore than rudiments, much as a would be expceted from a chimp. Children do not need to be taught language, children only need read and personal linguitic input from adults. An accessible place to start reading might be Steven Pinker on the subject. 92.40.253.93 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon 92, thanks for enlightening me about the difference between language and communication. I thought about going back and re-reading my notes from my Master's from Gallaudet University and subsequent Ph.D. from Yale, but then I realized . . . hey . . . anon92 knows more than any of my professors or the writers of any of the books or journal articles I read, so what's the point. I'll just read this talk page and let you get me up to speed. And thanks for linking a couple of Wikipedia articles. That was so helpful. By the way, I never claimed that it was a good idea to teach ASL to kids. I asked for a source to back up your ideas; that's only been done, uh, let's say about ten millions times on Wikipedia. But now I realize, you don't need a source. You are the only source that anyone needs. How could I have been so stupid?? Cresix (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you are saying, but you'd still need reliable sources (and less POV) if you wanted to add any of this to the article. Teaching signs without grammar or syntax is not giving a language, and it's a different concept than the language acquisition of ASL (or other SLs) in infants and toddlers. That doesn't mean teaching Hearing infants SL or even just signs is useless (particularly if you continue to teach, as some do), as there are studies showing a correlation between SL and other second languages and certain benefits.

Perhaps the different topics of baby sign and SL acquisition could warrant a split? - Purplewowies (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there should be a clear split between the sign langauge acquisition and the gestural communication. The waters are unfortunately obviously muddied outside teh scope of the article to those who don't know teh very big distinction.

I'm not making any suggestions for additions. I'm just pointing out a massive flaw in teh premise of the article. I notice also further up there has been a call for peer-reviewed work... wihout which the article could validly be deemed an advertising piece for new age hokum.

I have no special interest, but came upon this article by chance and spotted the gaping chasm between its position and what even any undergraduate liguist should know about LA. I'm not 'hep' to wiki 'jive', but it needs to be flagged up as somthing that is dubious credibility. 09:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.111 (talk)

1. Oh and i'm not going respond to anyone who begisn an argument with their own credentials, especially after failing to address any points and reaching for ad hominem. Pointless ego tripping. Get a life! 94.197.127.111 (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to start off by saying that this article seems a bit of a wreck. For a start, it seems to promote and largely comprise the opinions of the researchers mentioned in the article. This is fine, but the article goes about it the wrong way. It gives tremendous weight to two of these researchers by stating that they were the pioneers of teaching infants and toddlers sign language, completely uncited. It also states that a given researcher is a leading proponent, uncited as well. The whole "Research" section seems to be a hastily conglomerated section of studies. However, this seems to be more about the presentation rather than the content. This article certainly needs to be more concluded on hard facts rather than a few expert opinions- while I do not dispute the majority of the article is undoubtedly true, the information given is just conclusions of people, as opposed to some bare statistics that can be concluded by a reader or the article. I also fear that this gives a bit too much weight to ASL- there are other sign languages, as I can attest. Some of the article is a few isolated biographies, and once even mentions a researchers intentions for study! Anyway, I expressly apologise for spamming the top of the page, and I just wanted to highlight what was wrong with the article for future improvement. I fear that I won't be able to improve it without brutalising the most of the article. If you feel a given tag is excessive or wrong, feel free to reduce it. In retrospect, I think a cleanup tag would have sufficed. En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E)  10:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the "Research" section is verbatim text from [3]. It is often unclear where the wikipedia article ends and the quotes begin. Badly needs cleanup in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.6.72 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the research section needs some work. I think with expansion of the development and practice sections to include their own relevant research information, the research section could be done away with. CPev (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main sign language article has a link "sign language in infants and toddlers" that redirects to this page. Given that much of the research about signed languages deals with their acquisition, and given the complaints about the quality of this page, perhaps a "redesign" of the page could be beneficial. What I have in mind is focusing the page onto sign language acquisition, perhaps with a smaller section on specialized baby sign languages. Some of the information already here is applicable, so it might not require a totally new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CPev (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]