Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've heard that for some children who are deaf, or who have speech problems of some sort, signing can help them communicate their wants and needs to their parents/caregiver(s).

I don't know much more, sorry. I'd imagine it would be interesting to try though.

The only people that I know personally that are using it are those who's younger children had speech problems. Most of the times they recommend it under the age of 2ish since it's hard to get them to start speaking and it's a way to deal with their frustrations and inability to communicate.

My son is in speech therapy, but being that he is 3, they do not do that at all. I don't buy the baloney that if your child uses sign language they will be smarter because the connatations are just insulting.

If it works for you, do it. When you do your checkups for the child, they will make notice on the speech development and if they are delayed, they will recommend speech therapy, regardless of signing or not. I've known children who are speech delayed with AND without learning signing, so I doubt there is a correlation. It's just preference. Just make sure to keep up on the checkups and remember those are guidelines not must-dos that a child must accomplish.

Quite a few studies have shown that children who learn more than one language in infancy will have more developed and more organized brains (meaning the connections between neurons are stronger and more organized and there is more grey matter to begin with). I assume that sign language would be included here.

But remember that basic hardware is nothing without good programming. Just because their brains are capable of more (statistically) doesn't mean diddly squat if they aren't raised in a way that truly makes use of that capability.

Also, the change isn't huge and drastic. It's just a slight increase in a) ability to learn yet another language, b) SAT scores, c) average IQ. Looking at two kids, you won't be able to say "omg! That one knew a second language as a child! Look at the size of his forehead!!!"

I agree that all these studies need to be taken with a grain of salt. I also agree that the correlation is extremely minimal (if there is one). I'm using it more as an argument to say that it's ok to teach your kid another language rather than "Teach your kid another language NOW or he/she will be a retard!!"

As for the confusion stuff, that depends on how languages are taught. For example, the community I grew up in had a lot of English speakers, but it was predominantly French. I had English and home, French and school. The division was extremely clear. After being corrected a few times for using a French word in an English sentence or visa versa, I really didn't have any problems. But I had some friends (especially ones who had one Swiss parents and, thus, mixed languages in the home) who had a lot of trouble destinguishing between the two languages. Because they were treating both French and English as a single language, they had a lot of trouble communicating with anyone who only spoke one. Many of them just got so frustrated that they stopped speaking entirely.

That's the general rule. If you have more than one language, make sure they are rigidly situational. Or, in the case of hand signals, are so completly different that they can't be confused.

As far as increasing IQ, no one knows. No studies have really said either way.
I do basic signs with my 21-month old, because for some words that are hard for him to say, it's easier for him to do the sign, or he'll do the sign and say the word.
Studies HAVE said that it does NOT delay speech, as long as you still SAY the words to your child when you sign them, and also still encourage them to say the words as well. What it helps with is being able to reduce frustration when you can't understand their words just because their mouths and tongue aren't developed enough to make the noises.
Being able to do signs seems to help my son a lot sometimes, but other times, he refuses to do them.
If you want to do it, there is NO harm that can come from it, only good.
The appropriate time to start is about the time when your kiddo starts waving byebye or pointing... in other words, when they start understanding that hand-gestures are expressive.

I just wanted to let you all know that I've found baby signing to be *invaluble* with my toddler - he is in no way hearing impaired, and my impairment is so slight I don't even need a hearing aid. My husband has no hearing problems at all, but all 3 of us use signs.

I have had no problems with my son being behind in verbal development, and every word that he signs, he can also say. He just ususally prefers to sign the words because it's easier - plus, we parents get confused because bath and ball and bag all sound the same, and apple and grandpa sound the same, and milk comes out like "guk" - My son has learned that sign language makes those words clear.

When my husband or I sign to our kiddo, we always always say the word. We ask him "What do you want to eat?" while signing "what eat" - he will answer saying or signing what he wants. For example, he prefers to say the word "cracker" because he says it quite clearly. He prefers to sign the word "cheese" because it sounds like "shess," and he likes his words to sound right.

We've found that sign language has also helped him avoid the baby talk - he'll sign a word until he can say it right. But it saves us so so so much frustration because he has 2 different ways to illustrate what he wants.

So if you're interested in teaching kids sign language, do it - it helps develop fine motor skills, and it gives them an outlet to communicate easier.

Personally, we use American Sign language, just because I figured it will be more useful to him in the future than if you make up signs, but his cousin learned a bunch of signs that my sister-in-law just made up, and he's done just as well with those. As long as the kid and the caretaker both know what the signs mean, then it's useful. Don't forget to leave notes for the babysitter, so they can understand the kiddo as well!