« School for Deaf celebrates 150 years of opportunity | Main | Hear! Hear! to productive life »
February 5, 2006
Baby sign language ‘could hinder speech’
Scots parents are flocking to classes which teach their babies to “talk” through sign language, despite some experts fearing the practice could hinder the development of speech. Baby signing courses have sprung up across Scotland after the craze crossed from America to the UK.
One company offering lessons has doubled the number of tutors it has north of the Border to cope with demand. Parents can even attend college night classes on the subject.
But the phenomenon has triggered a furious debate among therapists over its benefits. Sceptics argue that at best it is a waste of money and, in the worst case, could lead to delays in children talking.
The Adam Smith College in Fife started a 10-week baby signs course last month. The £43 evening class teaches parents up to 100 signs which they can then pass on to their children.
Adam Smith tutor Wendy Rand said: “A lot of the frustration that young children have is because they can’t communicate their desires to the parent or the caregiver. Signing gives you a window to their mind, it helps you know what they are thinking and what interests them: so in that regard it can increase bonding as well.” Rand argued that signing could “accelerate” speech development because it is recommended that parents say the word they are signing.
Pamela Drewett, a tutor with signing initiative TinyTalk, agrees. TinyTalk offers classes teaching parents and infants British Sign Language signs for around £4 per hour and has recently doubled the number of teachers it has in Scotland.
“It actually promotes their speech development if done properly,” she said. “Because they are being understood from a young age, their confidence grows because they are able to communicate with you from such an early age.”
But some experts are less convinced of its benefits. In a recent debate in the journal of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT), one group of academics from City University, London, argued that the most helpful things parents could do for children aged between eight and 12 months “is to encourage them to point”.
A RCSLT spokesman said members were concerned that baby signing was “preying on middle-class worries”.
“Children will learn to talk in the right environment with the right parental stimulation anyway, unless they have got a problem,” said the spokesman.
“That is our message; do you need to pay X number of pounds to buy a DVD or go to therapy classes when you don’t actually need them?
“ There is evidence on the other side [of the debate] that some babies in America have actually slowed their introduction of speech, because they don’t need to because they are using baby signing.”
Liz Attenborough, manager of the National Literacy Trust’s Talk to Your Baby campaign, said: “I would question whether one needed to go on a great big course and learn a whole heap of things because there is not a huge amount of time between when your child is able to absorb signs and learn the signs and before they start speaking.”
By Judith Duffy
http://www.sundayherald.com/53941
Posted by 4HL on February 5, 2006 6:26 AM
Send this article to a friend
Comments
I dont think thats true because i was signing at the age of one and now i am 15 and i can speak fine and the reason i know asl is because my 18 year old brother is deaf and has been since 2 weeks old .
Posted by: Jessica Trainer at February 6, 2006 12:07 PM