Baby Signs & the importance of ASL

Lovely, but not on point. I simply stated that this child was a *star*, and since it never said anything about knowing the manual alphabet by before age 18 months, I continue to say that statement is valid.
 
faire_jour said:
Lovely, but not on point. I simply stated that this child was a *star*, and since it never said anything about knowing the manual alphabet by before age 18 months, I continue to say that statement is valid.
Click to expand...

You asked for research to show that this child is the norm. It has been provided. You are simply ignoring it. When you ask for it, it is expected that you will at least read it. If you are not going to read it, it is simply evidence that you are not interested in the research at all, but are simply requesting it to be argumentative and challenging.
 
jillio said:
You asked for research to show that this child is the norm. It has been provided. You are simply ignoring it. When you ask for it, it is expected that you will at least read it. If you are not going to read it, it is simply evidence that you are not interested in the research at all, but are simply requesting it to be argumentative and challenging.
Click to expand...

These articles discuss language development in hearing babies who use baby signs. I simply said that fingerspelling at 15 months is not AVERAGE. And i still contend it is not. Do you have something that discusses that?
 
faire_jour said:
These articles discuss language development in hearing babies who use baby signs. I simply said that fingerspelling at 15 months is not AVERAGE. And i still contend it is not. Do you have something that discusses that?
Click to expand...

It also says that language development is advanced by several months for these children. It is not unusual for a 2 year old to be able to recite the alphabet if they have been worked with. Figure in the advanced language development, and it is quite reasonable to conclude that a 15 month old could repeat the movements of the manual alphabet. It did not say the child was fingerspelling. It said she could form the manual alphabet.

The answer was extremely clear. Although Linda was a bit disappointed to learn that Kate was not totally unique,

Perhaps you missed the above from the research.
 
jillio said:
It also says that language development is advanced by several months for these children. It is not unusual for a 2 year old to be able to recite the alphabet if they have been worked with. Figure in the advanced language development, and it is quite reasonable to conclude that a 15 month old could repeat the movements of the manual alphabet. It did not say the child was fingerspelling. It said she could form the manual alphabet.

The answer was extremely clear. Although Linda was a bit disappointed to learn that Kate was not totally unique,

Perhaps you missed the above from the research.
Click to expand...

"Not totally unique" = average

You would never accept that from an oralist.
 
faire_jour said:
"Not totally unique" = average

You would never accept that from an oralist.
Click to expand...

Only in your definition. Not totally unique = somewhat unique = not average = the norm. It is the norm because it is also the norm for language development of children exposed to baby sign to be advanced in comparison to those who don't.
 
jillio said:
Only in your definition. Not totally unique = somewhat unique = not average = the norm. It is the norm because it is also the norm for language development of children exposed to baby sign to be advanced in comparison to those who don't.
Click to expand...

Norm means "standard, model or regarded as typical" or "an average"

Why are you playing semantics? Either it is average, typical, or whatever you want to call it, or it isn't.
 
faire_jour said:
Norm means "standard, model or regarded as typical" or "an average"

Why are you playing semantics? Either it is average, typical, or whatever you want to call it, or it isn't.
Click to expand...

No dear, the norm and average are not the same thing at all. This is the norm for children exposed to baby sign. It is not the norm for children not exposed to baby sign. Norms and averages are not necessarily equal. It isn't a matter of semantics. It is a matter of two different terms with two different meanings that should not be used interchangeably.
 
Cut it out. This is getting preposterous.

There's a variation of norm for psychological/sociological/ definitions.
There's also different meaning for that in general everyday context.

If the hissy stuff keeps going on.. It will be a matter of time before the tenure meets its timelimit..
And that's not cool.
 
naisho said:
Cut it out. This is getting preposterous.

There's a variation of norm for psychological/sociological/ definitions.
There's also different meaning for that in general everyday context.

If the hissy stuff keeps going on.. It will be a matter of time before the tenure meets its timelimit..
And that's not cool.
Click to expand...

Thank you for understanding that distinction, naisho. Norm does not mean normal in every sense of the word.
 
This is just a note of a word or two -

Let's try to keep this clean and engage in a discussion rather than allowing it to end up in one of the game where it states "I'm right, You're wrong".

That does not always work.

So, with that - Please at least, get back on the topic.

Thanks. :)
 
Gotcha, Jolie.

Baby sign has been shown to advance the level of linguistic functioning for children by several months. As they grow older, the gap gets even wider, with a larger advantage seen for the children who have been exposed to baby sign. Therefore, if you expose a child to baby sign, you can expect to see the same results in your child. This would be the norm for children exposed to baby sign.
 
That is sound great

i am happy hear about teach my sister baby. I wish be support to help me. I am glad of you sound great. I am happy I am exciting about to teach ASL :wave:
 
smithtr said:
i am happy hear about teach my sister baby. I wish be support to help me. I am glad of you sound great. I am happy I am exciting about to teach ASL :wave:
Click to expand...

Yes I agree.
How old were you when you learnt ASL? Can you remember?
 
There is a poster at the beginning of the topic (I can't remember their name!), and I agree with them. I think it's great for hearing, HOH, AND deaf babies to learn ASL. Once those babies grow up, if they still sign throughout their life, then they can teach their babies how to sign as well. It would create a much better place to sign, talk, and just communicate all around. I think it's beautiful when people can communicate with one another, despite barriers.
 
Neikirkle said:
There is a poster at the beginning of the topic (I can't remember their name!), and I agree with them. I think it's great for hearing, HOH, AND deaf babies to learn ASL. Once those babies grow up, if they still sign throughout their life, then they can teach their babies how to sign as well. It would create a much better place to sign, talk, and just communicate all around. I think it's beautiful when people can communicate with one another, despite barriers.
Click to expand...

Sure that is great. The controversy comes in when it is a fashionable fad for teaching sign to hearing babies, and then it is denied to deaf babies in favor of therapies as AVT, etc.
 
Back
Top