Where Did Baby Sign Language Go?

When money meets science and political correctness gets in the way, sometimes we lose sight of what we were aiming for. The evolution of Baby Sign Language is perfect example of this where an original and very useful program has evolved into something so different it doesn't even have the same function. I pose the question - why are all flocking in droves to spend money to teach our children the language of the deaf community and where did baby sign language go?

Baby Sign Language research started over 30 years ago, almost simultaneously taking place in two camps, Joseph Garcia in one and Linda Acredolo and Susan Goodwyn in the other.

Joseph Garcia, as sign language interpreter, had a wide network of friends in the deaf community. He noted that the hearing offspring of signing deaf parents used signing long before their spoken language developed.

Drs. Linda Acredolo and Susan Goodwyn conducted a longitudinal study funded by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development using a collection of baby sign language gestures that they called 'Baby Signs'. The study showed that babies taught Baby Sign Language understood more words, had larger vocabularies and engaged in more sophisticated play than non-signing babies. Parents of the babies in the study using Baby Sign Language noted decreased frustration, increased communication, and enriched parent-infant bonding. They revisited the families in the original Baby Sign Language study when the children were seven and eight years old. The children who used Baby Sign Language had a mean IQ of 114 compared to the non-signing control group's mean of 102 (Acredolo and Goodwyn, 2000). Since these early days Baby Sign Language has grown into a worldwide phenomenon.

The Baby Sign Language forged ahead with these two themes, one teaching the language of the hearing impaired the other teaching the original Baby Sign Language program. There is an obvious benefit to the offspring of those who suffer from hearing disabilities. It was also clear from the original Baby Sign Language research that there were benefits to teaching baby signs to children that were not hard of hearing or otherwise at risk of developmental delay.

Since the early days however the focus has changed from simple gestures of Baby Sign Language to communicating with hearing babies using the official language of the deaf community. Even the original Baby Sign Language program pioneered by Drs Acredolo and Goodwyn has evolved into teaching official American Sign Language (ASL). In fact, today, it is a challenge to find any Baby Sign Language resource that is specifically designed for hearing babies; they are all now based on adult sign language.

Today, Baby Sign Language virtually exists as American Sign Language (ASL), British Sign Language (BSL) or Australian Sign Language (AUSLAN) repackaged with a stock photo of a baby on the front cover. Is there any benefit to teaching adult sign language to children that are not hearing impaired? Are we now focusing too much on teaching an adult sign language and losing out on the benefits that the original Baby Sign Language program offered?

Acredolo and Goodwyn (2004) state: "Research has shown that signs are easiest for babies and for parents when they involve simple gestures and when they resemble the things they stand for, e.g. fingers to lips for 'eat'; arms out straight like wings for 'airplane.'" If you reinforce particular gestures and particular sounds, babies will develop their communication skills in several different modalities. There does appear to be a short period during which infants can produce more differentiated and controlled hand gestures than speech sounds, but it is a transitory phase.

Is it ethical to be selling the language of the deaf community as a resource for baby’s speech development? Where are the profits of this clever marketing going; rarely do they go back into the deaf community.

Almost all of the marketing material for these so called Baby Sign Language products display children using these resources who are clearly pre-school age and older. There is good reason for this; the traditional sign language signs such as ASL are quite possibly too difficult for most very little hands to do. At 4 months of age a baby will not be able to make ballerina hands, finger spell the alphabet.

Baby Sign Language should be simple enough to be useful for the short period of time before the child can communicate with words. This encompasses an age gap of 4 months to 30 months. The exception to this is if the child has a specific need to communicate with those who are hard of hearing or if the child is showing signs of developmental delay in which case traditional sign language would be recommended.

The research was clear. The benefits of early communication with baby sign language based on simple gestures included earlier speech development, better language comprehension and less guessing games for parents.

“We don’t care if people want to use formal sign language, but it’s not necessary,” Acredolo said. Kids stop using signs as they speak more words, so the “baby signs” are meant to be temporary.