Anyone else have a kid who had NO USE WHATSOEVER for signing?

[blizzard_babe]

Everyone talks about signing like it was the best thing that could have ever happened for their baby/toddler.

Am I the only one whose kid just never had any use for it? He learned the sign for milk at 6 months, and would do it WHILE nursing, but figured out at like 6.5 months that he could say mum-mum-mum-mum and get mum-mums.

He never signed independent of speaking. He'd learn a sign while learning the word, and maybe once in a while do the sign while saying the word, but then would just start using the word.

Maybe my kid's a weirdo (hey, the apple wouldn't be falling too far from the tree...), but all the signing stuff did NOT live up to its hype. We never saw any "lessened frustration" or "increased ability to communicate" or any of that. Luckily we hadn't spent any money on anything (received some stuff as shower gifts), cuz if we had, I'd be feelin' pretty duped...

Tell me I'm not alone. It just never showed any benefits for us.

[laohaire]

I was interested because I'm hearing impaired and I can't understand little kids' speech.

So I got the books and started with it but I found my DD was very verbal from a young age, and her speech is crystal clear (as noted by strangers as well).

Well, I'm not knocking it, I think it's great, but for us it didn't really offer us anything we needed.

[littlehoneybee]

Well, my first was pretty much like yours. Made the sign for milk a few times, but pretty much said "ma-mmm" and that was it. He never really used signs, despite my efforts to teach them to him.

[marispel]

My DS watched the Signing Times DVD since he was 7 or 8 months old. We used the signs when we said the word, but he never signed anything until 16 mo old. By that time, he was saying the word too.

Now, he loves to sign while he yells out the word, but he has never used a sign to "communicate" with us.

The only benefit it has had for us is that the grandparents love to show off his signing to others.

I still love it and think its a nice thing to learn

[sapphire_chan]

Well you've got to remember you've got a kid who enunciates clearly. A few times round of "what sweetie? what do you want? A "frezelsprout"? Um... can you *show* me a "frezelsprout"? and he'd have been quite glad of a sign for faucet.

In the future though, you could try reintroducing signing as a way for him to let you know stuff from across the room or in places where it needs to be quiet or to check with you without interrupting.

[blizzard_babe]

Originally Posted by sapphire_chan

Well you've got to remember you've got a kid who enunciates clearly. A few times round of "what sweetie? what do you want? A "frezelsprout"? Um... can you *show* me a "frezelsprout"? and he'd have been quite glad of a sign for faucet.

In the future though, you could try reintroducing signing as a way for him to let you know stuff from across the room or in places where it needs to be quiet or to check with you without interrupting.

True, true.

Once he's old enough (if he ever is...) to understand that voices don't always need to be turned on high volume, I think we might try it. Right now, he can whisper, but only as a game.

[starling&diesel]

Oh, I had SUCH ambitions to teach my little one sign ... especially because I am fluent in ASL and worked as an interpreter for several years.
She doesn't sign.
Has zero use for it.
No interest whatsoever, despite my best intentions.
She's an early talker, and a good one at that, and would far rather say it than using the sign for it.
So it might sound like this ... "Mama, 'nana, PEEEEEZ!" [which means, "I'd like a banana, mama, please] but she gets her message across loud and clear.

[Bokonon]

My son learned several signs early on, but then he started talking fairly early, and stopped signing when he could say the words.

DD has learned the signs for "Mommy", "Daddy", and "milk", but doesn't use them much, and certainly never to lessen her frustration! I think it's worth keeping up with though, as it's not time-consuming or unpleasant, and the potential benefits are great.

[greenbeanmama]

I've done baby signs with several children I've nannied for. With my son, he would do "milk" a few times, but didn't start doing them regularly until he started talking. And he was a later talker. And I keep forgetting with little sister. Ah well. I think she'll develop okay without baby signs!

[bedheadmaestro]

another baby who isn't a signer here. We started with 'milk' at 4 mos and now at 14 mos she only does the 'milk' sign halfheartedly when she can see the bottle and knows she's going to get milk anyway. She did 'more' one day, once. No other signs. I'm not worried, since I feel like I can understand her perfectly without signs. Maybe that's it...baby feels like she is being understood well enough without signing. It's amazing to see other babies signing though, and I'll keep doing it.

[Emmery'sMom]

My DD likes using and learning new signs, but she says the word in conjunction with the sign....or if I don't respond quickly enough to her verbal request she will come do the sign right in front of my face like she just knows I didn't hear her correctly because I didn't immediately jump to do her bidding
I agree- baby signs did not live up to the hype, but she was also very verbal really early.

[blizzard_babe]

Originally Posted by Emmery'sMom

My DD likes using and learning new signs, but she says the word in conjunction with the sign....or if I don't respond quickly enough to her verbal request she will come do the sign right in front of my face like she just knows I didn't hear her correctly because I didn't immediately jump to do her bidding
I agree- baby signs did not live up to the hype, but she was also very verbal really early.

This reminds me...

DS somehow came to associate "more" (both the sign and the word) with "food." We used it in multiple contexts, but in the beginning, if he was hungry, he'd say (and simultaneously sign) "more," even if he wasn't currently eating anything.

If we didn't immediately jump to do his bidding, he'd say "more" a little more urgently and do the sign bigger and with more vigor... repeat (assuming we still hadn't been able to provide him with food, like if we were cutting it up or something) until he was literally stretching his little arms as far apart as they'd go, and just SMASHING them together in the middle, accompanied by a pleading, "MORE!"

But again, it always ACCOMPANIED the word.

Maybe it helped him acquire those early words, I don't know.

[ann_of_loxley]

It didn't work for us at all. I started signing early with DS - he must have been about 8 weeks old. I didn't expect him to be signing then but I thought 'better earlier than never!'...Heard so many great things about it!
But, by the time he actually learned/and/or would use the sign, he could also say the word! (and he was also a late talker...so you know, if he actually wanted to, it could have been really helpful for us! lmao)... So for us, not helpful.

I know two children though that this is great with! Seriously, I do look at them and think 'wow - signing is amazing!' lol... They are late talkers as well but can get their message by with signing and it is amazing to watch. For them, it does work. They are also girls though. Maybe that makes a bit of a difference? I know boys usualy are a bit behind in the speech area as they statistically develop faster in the physical area.

[HappyMommy2]

MY DS was very verbal, so as soon as he learned to say the word, there was no longer the need for the sign. He only used a couple: more and milk.... then he just started talking!

Signing was GREAT. I took it for what it was, though. A way to communicate. I don't think that makes it useless.

Learning those two signs, or a few more, helped with the transition to learning to speak. I think it reduced the frustration of not being able to speak.

[bandgeek]

I imagine kids who speak aren't going to have much use for it. But the point is to give the kids who aren't ready to speak another option to communicate. If they talk, who cares if they sign? My kid didn't talk until he was 2 1/2 so signing was awesome for him. He started signing at 14 months. If he had been talking at 14 months (even just 10 words) signing would have been pointless.

[Latte Mama]

When you have a non verbal toddler, signing IS great. My DS doesn't know hundreds of signs but he knows enough to make most of his needs known. I think for those that have early, clear talkers, you might not have such a use for it.

[mckittre]

I guess it's just a case of one size doesn't fit all. Which is true for everything else with kids, so not terribly surprising. My almost 14 month old is terrible at speaking clearly, only speaks a few simple words, but loves signs and knows dozens. So it is super helpful for us. I imagine kids who figure out speaking first would be different.

[blizzard_babe]

I guess I'm just oversensitive to the "your child will be happier, less frustrated, and more able to communicate!" hype. It's a useful tool for some kids, sure, and I get that. Maybe what I don't like is the marketing (and I usually find marketing for most things to be a bit... seedy, so again... me being oversensitive ) to parents as a cure-all, something that everyone NEEDS, as opposed to a nice extra that some kids do well with.

[elleystar]

Well my DS is a very late talker (has maybe 10 words at nearly 2 yo) and the signing was also a bust. I think he signed 'more' once for me, and that was that. So I don't really know what to make of it. It makes sense for the early talkers to not bother with signs, but the late ones? I guess we just came to understand his grunts so well that he felt he was communicating plenty.

[physmom]

Originally Posted by blizzard_babe

I guess I'm just oversensitive to the "your child will be happier, less frustrated, and more able to communicate!" hype. It's a useful tool for some kids, sure, and I get that. Maybe what I don't like is the marketing (and I usually find marketing for most things to be a bit... seedy, so again... me being oversensitive ) to parents as a cure-all, something that everyone NEEDS, as opposed to a nice extra that some kids do well with.

Eh, nothing's the be all, end all of parenting. Marketing is there just because someone wants our money so, of course, they say that!

We tried signing starting at 4 months but then DD started to speak at 6 months. HOWEVER, she just never really flew with the speaking thing. I think it's an articulation issue because she's said a lot of words but they are hard to understand or she'll only say the first syllable. We were both frustrated and started signing again at 14 months. She really picked it up and now knows 60+ signs and can even do some sentences and she's constantly asking about new ones.

I think you just do what is best for your kid. If you have an early (clear) talker, great! Signing probably won't be needed but if you don't go for it because it can definitely help.