Smalls, my littler nephew, had a hard time talking at first. Actually, he talked plenty, but without consonants. Just vowels, for long sentences. We tried to follow, but it was hard. It was frustrating enough for him that he was starting a stutter.
There were awesome aspects of it, though. He'd re-enact the whole story as he talked. Or pull you over to the action and point to the details.
A speech therapist seems to be fixing it, and quickly, too. Maybe two months of work and the stutter is gone and he is understandable to people who don't know him. It is great for him, because he's much less frustrated. But we hope we don't lose the gesturing and physical demonstrations.
Holy smokes the comments. I think they got to "Maybe vaccines caused brain damage" in fewer than 20.
What a surprise that signing rather than speaking to your child leads to a child who signs rather than speaks.
American parents! So decadent!
he talked plenty, but without consonants
CA's littler nephew does this very thing. "Chips" are "ips" -- he can do the p -- and his own name (Matthew) he renders "aa-oo." Interestingly, if other folks can't understand him, they need only summon his slightly older brother, who interprets perfectly.
Smalls was vaccinated!!! It cost him his early years of consonants!
"Matthew says that I should get ice cream."
Yeah, most of the parents I know have done a little bit of signing with their kids. Haven't heard any horror stories though. Also, most of the little kids I see regularly are oldest & only, so they get a lot of facetime with adults. That seems to cut down on the babytalk and up the general comprehension considerably.
If I were the author, I wouldn't worry so much though. William S. Burroughs didn't say a word until he was 32, and then that word was "Heroin!", so, you know, famous author and all.
My Dad didn't talk until he was four, and then he said "My oatmeal is cold."
Hawaiian Punch doesn't know any words or signs. We have been signing to her a little bit, mostly just "milk", "food", and "kitty", and it doesn't seem to have caught on yet. Shockingly, we don't worry or even think about it very much.
She also doesn't crawl or have any teeth. She does cuddle, which I'm pretty sure is the most important part.
That last comment sounds incredibly self-righteous and obnoxious. Is parenting the most landmine-filled topic possible?
It's just glorious to be doing everything right, the way we are. That's all I mean to say.
People aren't worried about how bourgeois signing to babies is? What's the racial breakdown?
Truthfully, I'd never heard of this signing to babies thing. Guess that's what 15 years (today!) out of the loop will do for you. May it long continue!
I learned yesterday that some good friends of mine aren't vaccinating their kid at all; arrgh!
11: I think cars v. bikes is more fraught, really.
Yeah, most of the parents I know have done a little bit of signing with their kids.
Dammit, I...um...I hate to keep saying things like this...I would have guessed that less than one in a thousand non-deaf parents would do this. Boy, my perspective on the world is going to change when some of my peers become parents.
okay, let's change "non-deaf parents" to "parents without deafness in the family" right away.
'Bye for the weekend!
I would have guessed that less than one in a thousand non-deaf parents would do this.
It's a bit of a fad at the moment.
There were awesome aspects of it, though. He'd re-enact the whole story as he talked. Or pull you over to the action and point to the details.
I find this stage so cute -- that 'between one and three, fully capable of wanting to communicate something extended and coherent, but without the words for it yet so I'll go crazy with the mime' sort of thing. Sally and Newt were both early and clear talkers, so I never got it with them, but it's adorable on other kids.
When I was paying attention because my kids were babies, what I remember as the conventional wisdom was that age of first speaking, or first comprehensible speaking, or sentences, or anything, was absolutely unimportant as a diagnosis of anything wrong. What you worry about is a kid that doesn't seem to understand when you talk to them. But a kid who understands what you're saying, but just isn't saying anything back, is probably absolutely fine up to a really fairly advanced age.
16: Well, by "little bit" I mean a really little bit -- "hungry/eat" accounts for about 80% of the signing I've seen friends' and relatives' kids do. It seems to me that the main utility is in being able to forestall a crying jag/tantrum by being able to eliminate a few possibilities for distress. I'm not sure I've seen a kid that could do more than 2 signs in a row before they were talking. Signing just seems like another weapon in the Parents' Arsenal of Tricks, about on par with the heated baby wipe dispenser.
Yeah, a dear friend, who is a real pig-headed bastard (of the best sort!), didn't talk until he was 4, and, like Megan's dad, immediately came out with full sentences. I can just imagine his stubborn toddler brain thinking I don't want to sound like some fucking baby.
You won't be surprised to hear that teaching your kids a handful of signs is pretty common in my circles.
I was tending bar at a party and a woman came up to get something. She drew her hands together as she thought about what she wanted, so I prompted her with "You want more." She was a kindergarden teacher, so she got my small joke.
Smalls was vaccinated!!! It cost him his early years of consonants!
See, this is why we need health care reform, then the copayment for vaccines will only be a single letter or two.
Two people gave us copies of the same 'Baby Signs' book, and it was commonly talked about in my circle. I don't remember any of the kids Sally or Newt played with actually signing much.
My sense is that it's really not anything close to actually teaching the kids genuine American Sign Language in any coherent way -- it's a very restricted vocabulary of single-sign utterances. Mostly, if I understand it correctly, it's for kids in that window between wanting to communicate and actually being able to verbalize, giving them a couple of meaningful signs so they don't have to reinvent everything through mime.
Yeah, it is probably unconsciously insulting to call it signing. But it is a handful of useful gestures, so that's practically the same thing.
Right. It's a few helpful symbolic gestures, not actually the signs or grammar of ASL.
My comment was delayed because my parents signed to me.
Just as well. We can't understand your grunting and moaning over the internet.
You can't? I thought you were a feminist, laydee.
My comment was delayed because my parents signed to me.
I'm sorry it took so long for me to talk. I masturbated a lot as a kid.
I wonder if Cecily's around, and if she knows anything about when native-speakers (kids with signing parents who sign to them as primary communication) of ASL start signing. Younger on average than talkers, or not?
IIRC, I think kids raised on ASL do start signing earlier than hearing kids start talking. I think that was the whole impetus behind the baby gestures movement.
it is a handful of useful gestures
I thought you were militantly anti-pun.
I have no hands, and I must scream!
I cried because I had no words, until I met a baby that had no signs.
It seemed to me that signing was highly pushed for my friends who are parents of a Down Syndrome child, and he got down a lot of the basic commands pretty quickly, with his own flourishes. I can identify with some of the article from babysitting him - I think he signed "more" whenever he was bored, not because he actually wanted to eat. He's much more verbal than other Down Syndrome children his age so perhaps between that - and the early intervention speech therapy - really does make a difference.
(Or, you know, there's a huge spectrum of ability in Down Syndrome and talking might just be his thing.)
That, definitely -- I know a family with a kid with Down Syndrome, and he was definitely signing a lot for quite a while, like, up to six or seven, maybe older. He's in his late teens now, and also quite verbal, and I'm not sure when the signing stopped.
Poor tiny Joey gets so frustrated when he can't make himself understood. The worst period was last year, when he was three. He knew what he wanted to communicate, but he couldn't pronounce the words right, and he couldn't think of any other way to communicate. Now he's much better at working around the problems, mostly by finding other words or providing more context. "No, not caw as in dwiving. caw as in a phone caw!"
My friend did the signing thing with her daughter. When the daughter was about 18 months, she got into an unattended beer bottle at a party and when they took it away she kept fervently signing "more" as she chased after everyone who had beer in their hands.
I can identify with some of the article from babysitting him - I think he signed "more" whenever he was bored, not because he actually wanted to eat.
What's bizarre about the article is that she attributes this sort of thing as proof that they never should have taught him signs. Okay, so your kid is bored. They'd be bored without the word for "more", too. They're just bored. Enjoy!
(I know you are not making that leap. I just found the article incredibly aggravating.)
I have a vivid memory of throwing a tantrum because I wanted to watch cartoons, except I didn't know the word "cartoons", and so I kept saying "flat people! I want to watch the flat people!"
My mom and brother were amused and unconcerned, and I think we were headed out of the house anyway, so they were not very invested in figuring out what I meant. So I got more and more hysterical, at least until I could get them out of amused-territory.
What's bizarre about the article is that she attributes this sort of thing as proof that they never should have taught him signs.
In her defense, for a lot of parents, the minute you hear that something is "wrong" with your kid, it's really easy to feel guilty and convince yourself that you must have done something wrong. I was fortunate to have a perfect child to validate my perfect parenting, of course. But it can be hard for parents with inferior kids.
42: And you wonder why people insisted on calling you a cute kid.
43: So you think this is a bit of revisionist child history, in light of the current doctor's assessment that the 17-month-old needs speech therapy? If that is the case, I am more forgiving towards her.
I was reading it as an accurate description of being extremely preoccupied with language landmarks from day one. Hammed up for the internet consumption, but still reflecting a pretty obsessive pattern.
No, I think Di's right. She's got a kid with a (probably slight and unimportant) language delay requiring some kind of intervention, and she's freaked out and blaming herself. Less important, but the same thought process as blaming vaccines for autism.
I took a class in college on language development from this woman, who seems to be something of an expert in these issues. FWIW, her main take-home message seemed to be that gesture and signing are a net plus in every respect: Similar to what has been said above, she claimed that babies can learn to sign before they can talk, that signing doesn't intrude on spoken language, etc. Much of the class was like an advertisement for how much talking with your hands rocks. One interesting factoid she had was that deaf twins (and maybe even some hearing twins) who aren't taught a standard sign language will create anew a fully fledged sign language just between each other.
(There was like one other dude in the class and maybe 18 girls. It really didn't occur to me that boys and girls might not be equally interested in learning about how babies start to talk until I got to the first session.)
We used a few signs too. It helped a bit.
46: So you think Di's right that this is revisionist history? I would find that way more forgiveable.
Well, someone got up on the Scrooge side of the bed this morning!
I mean, we humans are able to create these brand new little humans--a remarkable feat in its own right--and THEN, those little humans manage to pick up something as sophisticated as human language with relatively little explicit instruction! Shouldn't men and women find this equally amazing? Yet the gender ratio of that class was by far the most skewed towards female of any class I took in college.
My CS classes where equally skewed, just in the opposite direction.
My 19-mo daughter wakes us up every morning from her room saying "Oh Mommy! Oh Daddy!" louder and louder at 5 am. When I bring her to bed, she then says "glassesglassesglassesmilkglasses" until we get up or she falls asleep.
I think I could live with her signing instead.
(no, probably not. but still.)
I wish I hadn't read that. I don't want to be any more irritated at people than I already am on Christmas Eve.
We taught our kids a half dozen signs; they came in handy for communicating needs while we were waiting for verbal communication to develop. Why must new parents problematize and annoy so much?
My Dad didn't talk until he was four, and then he said "My oatmeal is cold."
Is this true, or a reference to that joke about the silent monk?
||
This wine article really isn't even interesting, but I feel obligated to link to anything with the headline Mr. Stinky and the Huge, Shapeless Penis. Also, that pseudonym is now officially available to the highest bidder.
|>
I'm feeling rally chagrined here, but I have to ask: was the article for real? I'm old (60) and my irony/sarcasm meter doesn't always function.
(I'm glad other people find the article horrid. I was starting to wonder if I was being too judgemental.)
One interesting factoid she had was that deaf twins (and maybe even some hearing twins) who aren't taught a standard sign language will create anew a fully fledged sign language just between each other.
There's a famous example of this happening in Nicaragua that gets talked about a lot in innateness debates. It supposedly follows the "kids turning an adult pidgin into a creole" pattern.
I saw the sign, and it opened up my eyes. I saw the sign.
Speaking of people being judgmental of someone else's parenting decisions.
47, 53: I took a devo psych class in grad school, and Goldin-Meadow's work on sign languages and twin languages was featured prominently. The class was chic-heavy, but not more so than most psych classes. I, of course, considered this a feature, not a bug.
62: There's a woman whose daughter died the week before Hawaiian Punch was born. I saw a link to her blog, and read the past two years of this daughter's life, crying my eyeballs out the whole time, and have continued to read the blog this past year, almost superstitiously. They write about the full anguish of the grieving process.
Anyway, she tweeted it when the daughter died, and then she was called in as an expert/source/whatever with the case in the link, and she blogged about that, too. I just have so much loyalty to this poor family with the cute little toddler who died right before Hawaiian Punch is born, that I'd fight anyone who judged her or this other woman that she's sticking up for.
I know the kid's doctor says he's actually developmentally delayed and stuff, but I got a guilty guffaw out of imagining the parents standing around going, "God, you don't even know what that word means! Babies are so stupid!!"
31: Apparently not! Let's all celebrate Christmas by imagining the top of her head blowing off, Scanners-style.
Seems a bit of an overreaction, doesn't it?
Heebie, I was on a mountain in the middle of montana when the batsignal went off. "Heebie needs me on the internet!" I cried to my companions. So we hurried home to find out what was wrong.
I haven't read the comment thread or the link yet, but I'm about to. I won't lie, I'm a little nervous. Luckily we are well stocked on all kinds of alcohol if I need a restorative brandy or anything.
I wonder if Cecily's around, and if she knows anything about when native-speakers (kids with signing parents who sign to them as primary communication) of ASL start signing. Younger on average than talkers, or not?
I'm around now! Kids will start signing earlier (the 7-8 month thing is accurate) because of grosser motor skills than all the speech production stuff. But they don't have any overall advantage; everyone is pretty much on the same schedule by 12-14 months (the one-word/one-sign phase just lasts longer, it doesn't kick start the process).
43, 46 -- It's not just that something is "wrong." They tried to cheat, and win a headstart. Not only did it not work, but it sounds entirely likely that whatever is going on with the kid's speech is a direct result of their emphasis on signed communication.
I'm sure that if these people took Heebie's advice it would all work out. They won't. She should write back when the kid is six, about how they've tried to game reading, scholing, etc.
it sounds entirely likely that whatever is going on with the kid's speech is a direct result of their emphasis on signed communication.
It does?
70: I thought I saw you three times today. The first time, I actually said your name to "you" and was rebuffed. After that I was a little gunshy, and didn't say anything, so I could theoretically have been right one of those times, but it was from afar so whatever.
Anyway. My legs are good and sore. I think it's been 4 years since I skied on anything other than little Minnesota hills.
70, 71- the normal (in the clinical sense) response from a kid who is exposed to signs and words at the same time is that they produce signs and words (or approximations of both) at the same time. So unless the parents were never saying any words while they signed, I don't see a reason to think that the signing had any effect on speech production.
The class was chic-heavy, but not more so than most psych classes. I, of course, considered this a feature, not a bug.
The psych classes I took were never chic.
I thought mention of encouraging verbal development was conspicuously absent from the article. Instead, they sounded obsessive about getting the signing thing going. Maybe they talked -- and talked up talking -- just as much, and didn't see fit to mention that in lamenting the apparent delay of verbal ability. In fact, they sounded like they didn't want the kid to be making noises at a level less than articulate speech: that this was one of the goals of the signing thing.
Sorry to have been absent from Snowbowl all day. I'm a little sore from ripping up the Big Mountain yesterday, and anyway, needed to do some stuff around the house. How was the snow? Saturday, though. I've forgotten if you're still here then.
70: Next CC will be telling us that breast-feeding causes women to just whip out their tits on a whim.
Seriously, though, the fact that the mother and her husband rewarded signing perhaps overly much -- according to her report -- has to be taken as worried self-reporting to be countered with developmental psychologists' awareness of the matter. It really does sound as though the child is a slow starter, speech-wise. Correlation is not causation.
I've always been supportive of breast-feeding.
We've tried to teach our kids the signs for "milk," "water," and "more." Little J has caught on to "more" to mean "I want something! Now, figure out what it is. No, not that. No, not that either. Now I will get upset!"
My niece couldn't talk coherently for so long that her dad was about ready to conclude that there were developmental issues. Then the chronic ear infections went away and she started talking just fine and turned out to be a bright kid.
I hope this thread picks up again after tomorrow afternoon. I have SO MANY important and fascinating things to say about it.
They tried to cheat, and win a headstart
"Cheat"? Seriously? I talked/paid attention to Rory a bunch when she was an infant believing the stimulation was good for her developmentally. We read to her all the time. (I'll wager you did similar things with your kids.) To give her a "headstart," no denying that. That's "cheating"?
I didnt really read the link, but I am reminded of Berube's excellent discussion regarding expectations:
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/12/01/more-on-peter-singer-and-jamie-berube/
I have SO MANY important and fascinating things to say about it.
We've got a long history of serial commenting around these parts. And, heck, you're probably not even drunk.
Dish.
83
I also thought "cheat" was a strange choice of words.
Talked, played, sang, read. In languages we use in our daily lives.
I guess I did make my daughter sign up for Latin in the 7th grade. Instead of computers.
I was using 'cheat' in a way less loaded way than you all may be reading it. I'm driving down to Boise. Google has given me a route, optimized using whatever process it uses. I'm driving along, and I see a short-cut. Hah! I can beat Google. Off I go, only to find it very windy, and a little icy, about 20 miles in. Ends up costing me more time. Another cheat foiled.
88.last: I'm guessing Idaho 55.
Yeah. Course I didn't learn what windy and icy was til I came back on Id 21. Beautiful country, though.
90: Actually that works better than you probably realized given it was "55".
Oh! I kinda halfway sorta guessed that. Maybe. Perhaps.