posted
OK, so christmas night we were talking about my brother's infant son and whether or not he understands words yet. the mother said of course, but i was skeptical. she said they sign. i had seen that in Meet the Fockers, but didnt think every child would be like that.
they say: mom, dad, food, more, baby, and a couple other and little Jake does the signs for them. it was amazing. first time seeing that in real life. Maybe those Baby Einstein DVD's were a good investment after all.
anyone else ever done this with their kid?
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: OK, so christmas night we were talking about my brother's infant son and whether or not he understands words yet. the mother said of course, but i was skeptical. she said they sign. i had seen that in Meet the Fockers, but didnt think every child would be like that.
they say: mom, dad, food, more, baby, and a couple other and little Jake does the signs for them. it was amazing. first time seeing that in real life. Maybe those Baby Einstein DVD's were a good investment after all.
anyone else ever done this with their kid?
Careful, the American Council of Pediatrics just came out with a study that suggests that Baby Einsteins actually stunts children's mental development. I'll try to find it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We started using some sign with John when he was 6 months, but we weren't very consistant with it. He still signs "more" sometimes but that's about it. By a year old he had spoken words for his favorite foods, books, and toys.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh...yeah, what dkw said. An 18 month-old's not really an infant, anyway. They're a baby. I forget exactly when infants become babies; I think it's after 6 months.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We signed with Sophie beginning at six months, and Haley is now signing "more" and "milk" at seven months as well. I suspect they actually understand words a little earlier than that.
At 18 months, most children are talking. If they don't understand words by that point, there's probably something wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jake has a combination. he says easy words that he uses often, makes other noises, and signs mainly when we ask him to.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow, he certainly understands a lot more than i thought. they tell him commands all the time it seems and he knows exactly what they are saying.
sorry for not knowing my baby stuff. lack of experience or interest on my part i guess.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We signed with our two youngest kids. The could definately understand us and we them. It removed a lot of frustration for both us and the kids.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 18-month-old I nanny for not only understands most of what we say, but gets the concept of "taking turns" (he's not always happy about it, but he gets the concept) and he can follow multi-step instructions (For instance: "Put this away and get another one" or "clean it up then throw it away").
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My babies definitely understood at least some conversation by the time they were 4 or 5 months old. Emma started signing for milk at about 3 months old (the sign I had been using for "nurse" since the day she was born.) She created a word for "nurse" ("na-na") at 5 months that she used consistently (it took me a week or two to realize she was saying it every time she was hungry, and only when she was hungry, after she would sign but before she would start screaming), and said our names and a few more words by 7 months. At 9 months she could point out nose, eyes, and mouth on a face, and distinguish between verbal references to different people. She was a very vocal child.
Bridey didn't talk much; she had Ems to talk for her. But we knew she understood just about everything we were saying by 7 months, for sure. She didn't say much at all until 14 months, but she did sign some at 12 months. We realized at one point that she would get very frustrated if we played the "do you want this or this" trick on her, trying to get her to say the word instead of just nodding or shaking her head, but if we did the sign along with the words, she would approximate the sign instead of getting frustrated when we didn't understand her talking attempts. So we started signing in earnest, and eventually I noticed that she would use a sign for about a month before she started saying the word recognizably.
It is very interesting. She will still sometimes use a sign if I can't understand what she is saying verbally-- like the other day in the mall she was whining, "Tied! Tied! Tied!" I asked if she needed something tied, then if something was too tight. She got more and more frustrated, then started pulling her hand across her face from top right to bottom left and momentarily closing her eyes-- her version (and not a bad one) of the sign "sleep" as she said "Tied!" I said, "Oh, you're tired?" And her face lit up as she did it again and nodded. I said, "You want sleep? You are sleepy?" She repeated "Pweepy!" So I'm glad the signing went on even if she is now starting to phase it out, because not only did it seem to help her over a hurdle with her language development, it also still clarifies things for us sometimes, though we don't use it much.
Wow, that was long. The point being, I think babies understand a lot more than many adults give them credit for-- ask people who were at DallasCon about Emma understanding "watch your fingers" at 13 months, which inspired some disbelief until it was demonstrated-- and many are capable of communicating back in myriad ways if we give them the tools and make an effort to observe carefully and understand.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Receptive language is generally agreed to start, on average, at about 6 months, assuming I remember my intro to psych class correctly. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods at KQ* I'm so glad we signed with our kids. I don't think they'd've been able to communicate had we had to rely on purely verbal cues, but they were definitely talking to us from six months onward. What surprised me most about it, frankly, was the number of people who were skeptical about it, or who didn't believe that Sophie was capable of some of the things we told them she was doing. I'd recommend signing to any new parent.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I taught my kid to read before he could talk (although he was capable of talking in sentences by 9 months, just not that clearly). He could point to the word to communicate what he wanted.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Receptive language is generally agreed to start, on average, at about 6 months, assuming I remember my intro to psych class correctly.
I was going to say "but look at all the Hatrack babies who started well before that" but then I realized that an average is just that-- an average-- and I would not be surprised if many Hatrack babies are well above average. When your parents hang out at such a cool place, it behooves you to understand things a little early. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
