Baby Sign Language

As the number of parenting books, magazines, websites, and blogs has grown over the years, so too has the number of specialized strategies designed to maximize children’s health and development. "Baby signing" is one such strategy that has increased in popularity in recent years, emphasizing early and improved language development.

A quick Internet search illustrates just how popular it is, with pages and pages of links to books, videos, and classes. I suspect most of you have had parents ask about this. Full disclosure: We taught our own children a handful of signs to help them communicate before they began to be verbal.

However, baby signing is not without controversy. Some worry that parents are being hoodwinked into spending money on something based on questionable evidence, and others worry that teaching signs can actually delay language development. There is some debate as to whether or not it is appropriate to use sign language in such a limited and/or haphazard way, as most parents who teach their children signs are not truly fluent in sign language.

It should be noted that baby signing is typically not actually teaching American Sign Language (ASL) or true augmented communication. Baby signs often are modified by the teacher or parent to make them easier for an infant to perform, and usually do not have the complexity or consistency of hand movement seen with true ASL. Most parents who use baby signs are hoping to improve or speed up their children’s language development or help a preverbal child to communicate.

Overall, greater hand gesturing in infants has been associated with greater language development. However, this is not necessarily a causal association. Gesturing is a part of language development, and so it stands to reason that greater amounts of gesturing in a preverbal child would be associated with greater vocabulary in a kindergartener. Does teaching hand gesturing, or baby signs, improve language development?

It seems as if the jury is out on this issue. A systematic review by Johnson, Durieux-Smith, & and Bloom (First Lang. 2005;25:235-51) "provided little evidence that prelingual signing is either ‘beneficial, harmful or harmless’ to babies with typical hearing." (The review was cited by The ASHA Leader in an excellent article on this topic [ASHA Led. 2010 Nov. 2]).

So, should parents teach their babies to sign? As with most things in raising a child, moderation and perspective are key. In our own family, our children learned a few signs that they could use to try and tell us what they wanted without screaming. It was a funny guessing game trying to decide "more" of what they were asking for. I have friends whose children learned a lot more signs and had fun with it, and some who learned none.

Anything that increases parents’ interaction and engagement with their infants is a good thing, and teaching your baby signs can certainly do that, as long as it is done in a positive and fun way. Alternately, baby signing is not the only way to do this. Expecting your infant to be fluent in ASL or even to perfectly learn countless numbers of baby signs is unrealistic and stressful. Additionally, if signs are taught with such intensity that it is at the expense of spoken language or other interactions, that too could be detrimental. On the other hand, if signs are used to augment other types of stimulating and interactive communication, both infant and parent could benefit from the teaching and learning experience.

Dr. Beers is assistant professor of pediatrics at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Residency Scholarships, and president-elect of the District of Columbia chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.